CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 13 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28897/24 I.P. against North Macedonia lodged on 27 September 2024 communicated on 23 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim to be granted custody of his then 3-year-old daughter. On 16   December 2022 the courts at two levels of jurisdiction dissolved the marriage between the applicant and his former wife (“the mother”) but dismissed his custody claim. The courts relied on an opinion issued by the Social Care Centre (“the Centre”) according to which it was in the daughter’s best interest to stay with her mother as her life, health and safety were not endangered with such an arrangement. They dismissed the applicant’s arguments that the mother had ill-treated his daughter (supported by an audio recording of several incidents and its transcript in which the mother appears to be beating her daughter and using threatening and denigrating language towards her). Despite the applicant’s proposals, the courts did not commission a psychiatric expert report to assess his and the mother’s parental capacity, nor did they hear the Centre’s employees who had prepared the opinion on the case. On 21   March 2024 the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ judgments, without explicitly addressing the arguments concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant’s daughter by her mother. Invoking Article 6 and, in substance, Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic authorities did not take into account his arguments concerning the daughter’s alleged ill-treatment and did not afford him sufficient procedural guarantees to protect his interests in the custody proceedings.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts in the custody proceedings relevant and sufficient and was the decision-making process fair and such as to ensure respect for the various interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see, for the general principles, Petrov and X v.   Russia , no.   23608/16, §§   98-102, 23   October 2018; see also,   mutatis mutandis , Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no.   25735/94, §§   48-53, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Bîzdîga v.   the Republic of Moldova , no.   15646/18, §§   62 and 67-68, 17 October 2023)?