CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG26
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 février 2026
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0205DEC004331522
- Date
- 5 février 2026
- Publication
- 5 février 2026
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s33B52106 { width:126.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sBF636B3F { width:95.78%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC60E5610 { width:13.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s922CFB6E { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s283897E7 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s126264A2 { width:15.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s3BFE44DE { width:13.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6FEA060 { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE8A9321 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9034444C { width:15.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 43315/22 Fitim MUSLIU against North Macedonia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   February 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   August 2022, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Gjorchevski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The application concerns allegations that the applicant was physically attacked and beaten on 3 August 2020, while serving his prison sentence, by a prison guard, in front of the prison canteen. Before the Court, the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the prison guard had ill ‑ treated him and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into those allegations. These complaints had been communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”). THE LAW After the failure of the attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23   June   2025 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. In the declaration submitted to the Court, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the provisions of the Convention relied on by the applicant. They offered to pay the applicant a sum of 11,295 euros (EUR) to cover all non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration. By a letter of 11 July 2025, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, the applicant argued that, although the Government had acknowledged a breach of his rights, they had failed to specify the measures envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention, to remedy the violation found, and to address the structural problems concerning ill-treatment, as well as to implement the necessary reforms. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against North Macedonia, its practice concerning complaints relating to ill ‑ treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, El-Masri v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   [GC], no.   39630/09, §§   182 ‑ 85, ECHR 2012; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos.   10865/09   and 2   others, §§ 314-26, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Bouyid v.   Belgium   [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90 and §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015; Kitanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 15191/12, §§   76-77 and §§   83 ‑ 86, 22   January   2015 and X and Y v. North Macedonia , no. 173/17, §   50 and §   56, 5   November   2020). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in   fine ). In this connection, the Court also points out that the decision in question is without prejudice to the Government’s obligation to conduct an investigation in compliance with the requirements of the Convention in view of their acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant’s rights protected under Article 3 of the Convention (see Zarkovic and others v. Croatia (dec.), no.   75187/12, § 22-23, 9 June 2015, and Khalil v. Azerbaijan (dec.), nos.   60659/08 and 2   other applications, § 91, 6 October 2015). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 February 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphane Pisani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 43315/22 30/08/2022 Fitim MUSLIU 1990   Dime Gjorchevski Skopje 23/06/2025 11/07/2025 11,295   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 26
- Date
- 5 février 2026
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0205DEC004331522
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral