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 Applications nos. 13115/22 and 10879/23 Nazmi SADIKU against North Macedonia and Slobodan KOCEV against North Macedonia lodged on 2 March 2022 and 28 February 2023 respectively communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ alleged discrimination in the workplace, purportedly due to their political affiliation, and the domestic courts’ dismissal of their civil actions lodged under the Discrimination Act. In his claim against his employer (the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management), the applicant in application no. 13115/22 argued that, because of his membership in a certain political party, he had firstly not been promoted to a higher post and had subsequently been reassigned to a post outside his city of residence. The domestic courts established, inter alia , that the Ombudsman had concluded that the applicant’s reassignment had amounted to discrimination on the grounds of political affiliation. After two remittals, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that he had not demonstrated a prima facie case ( не стори веројатно ) of discrimination. In his claim against his employer (a public institution, hereinafter “the institution”) and its director, the applicant in application no. 10879/23 argued that, because he was a member of a certain political party, he was repeatedly reassigned to different posts in the institution, prevented from performing his tasks and made to work in inappropriate working conditions, and that disciplinary proceedings had been unjustly initiated against him. The domestic courts at two levels found that the applicant had not made a prima facie case of discrimination, and that the institution and its director had proven that they had not discriminated against the applicant. The courts did not give weight to the fact that the State Labour Inspectorate had ordered the institution to quash a reassignment decision concerning the applicant. Moreover, they did not provide any explicit reasoning with regard to evidence submitted by the applicant, such as photos of his working premises and witness statements, including one who had stated that the director’s treatment towards the applicant had been due to his affiliation to an opposition political party. Relying on Article 14 (in application no. 10879/23, in conjunction with Article 8) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereof, the applicants complain that they were discriminated against on the ground of their political affiliation and that the domestic courts did not adequately address the alleged discrimination. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of their political affiliation or opinion, in breach of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 10 and/or 11 of the Convention, or in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto (see, for general principles, Beeler v. Switzerland [GC], no. 78630/12, §§ 93 and 94, 11 October 2022, and Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, §§ 133-37, 19 December 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis , Redfearn v. the United Kingdom , no. 47335/06, §§ 42-57, 6   November 2012; Zakharova and Others v. Russia , no. 12736/10, §§ 35-48, 8 March 2022; and Bakradze v. Georgia , no. 20592/21, §§ 71-85, 7   November 2024)?