CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 17734/21 and 13645/24 Idriz ORANA against North Macedonia and Dimitar BOGESKI against North Macedonia lodged on 5 April 2021 and 7 May 2024 respectively communicated on 13 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the dismissal of the applicants’ civil claims for defamation lodged against Internet news portals and/or their editors, under the Act on Civil Liability for Insult and Defamation (“the Civil Liability Act”). The civil claim of the applicant in application no. 17734/21 concerned an article which stated that the applicant hated both the Christian religion and Islam. The civil claim of the applicant in application no. 13645/24 concerned several articles which depicted the applicant, inter alia , as a collaborator of the former State security services. The domestic courts at two (application no.   13645/24) and three (application no. 17734/21) levels of jurisdiction found that Internet news portals were not media within the meaning of the Media Act and the Civil Liability Act and, therefore, did not have standing to be sued for defamation. The applicant in application no. 17734/21 complains under Article 6 that the domestic courts did not examine his claim on the merits, in violation of his right to an access to a court. Relying on Article 8 (both applicants) and on Article 10 (the applicant in application no. 13645/24), the applicants also complain that the domestic courts did not protect their right to respect for private life.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the right of access to a court, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the applicant in application no. 17734/21, given the domestic courts’ interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Media Act and the Civil Liability Act ( see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018)? 2.     Do the final judgments of the domestic courts disclose a failure to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their reputation, as an element of the “private” life, in breach of the respondent State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see Oleg Balan v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 25259/20, § 26, 14 May 2024; Høiness v. Norway , no.   43624/14, § 65, 19 March 2019; and Popovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 12316/07, §§ 88-92, 31 October 2013)?