CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30276/23 Veselina Eftimova ANDREEVA against North Macedonia lodged on 24 July 2023 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s unsuccessful attempt to register her son, who was born in June 2002 and died in May 2021, in the civil status register (“the register”). In December 2017 the applicant lodged an application with the Civil Status Registry (“the Registry”) to make an entry in the register in respect of her son, who had apparently never been registered. Between 2020 and 2023 the Registry dismissed her application on three occasions, inter alia, as there had been no sufficient evidence to establish the paternity of the applicant’s son, and once stayed the proceedings. The second-instance administrative commission (“the Commission”) quashed the Registry’s decisions and remitted the case four times, despite the applicant’s requests that it decide the application on the merits pursuant to the General Administrative Proceedings Act. On three occasions, the Commission instructed the Registry to take into consideration the 2020 Act on Unregistered Persons in the Civil Status Register. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. Invoking Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic proceedings were lengthy and flawed, that they resulted in an impossibility to have her relationship with her son recognised, and that the Commission remitted the case, rather than deciding her application on the merits.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the lengthy and allegedly flawed proceedings to register her son in the civil status register affect the applicant’s private and/or family life, so as to trigger the application of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, S.-H. v. Poland (dec.), nos. 56846/15 and 56849/15, §§ 62-64, 16 November 2021)? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, guaranteed by Article 8 (see, for the general principles, Mizzi v. Malta , no. 26111/02, §§ 102-7, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); see also, mutatis mutandis , G.T.B. v. Spain , no. 3041/19, §§ 112 et seq., 16 November 2023, and Paparrigopoulos v. Greece , no. 61657/16, §§   49-50, 30 June 2022)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Kuppinger v. Germany , no. 62198/11, § 136, 15 January 2015)?