CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 11 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 19137/18 Vites ASANOVSKI and Others against North Macedonia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern border incidents in which the applicants, all Macedonians / citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia of Roma origin, were not allowed to leave the respondent State. The authorities based their decisions on the fact that the applicants had not had sufficient financial means or a return ticket or a formal letter of invitation regarding their country of destination, or, regarding application no. 20189/18, on a travel ban to leave the respondent State (imposed previously in view of a ban to enter the EU for having previously been deported by one of its Member States). The applicants brought civil actions against the State alleging violation of their right to freedom of movement and the principle of non ‑ discrimination, claiming that they were singled out by the border police officers owing to their Roma origin. Тhe domestic courts ruled in favour only in respect to the applicants in application no.   19137/18 regarding their right to freedom of movement. Their claims for violation of the principle of non-discrimination and compensation were dismissed.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants in application no.   19137/18 have victim status concerning their complaint under Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, given the domestic courts’ findings in the impugned proceedings?   2.     If so, was the ban placed on all applicants to leave the territory of the respondent State in compliance with Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention right to leave their country on the grounds of their Roma origin, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and/or Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence   Represented by 1 19137/18 Asanovski v. North Macedonia 18/04/2018 Vites ASANOVSKI 1982 Kriva Palanka   Djeljana ASANOVSKA 1980 Kumanovo   Stojan ASANOVSKI 1956 Kriva Palanka European Roma Rights Centre   Bojan GJUROVSKI 2 20189/18 Sulimanov v. North Macedonia 18/04/2018 Bedati SULIMANOV 1982 Veles European Roma Rights Centre 3 30425/18 Demirovski v. North Macedonia 22/06/2018 Fazli DEMIROVSKI 1965 Berovo Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV