CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 2025

.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 } Published on 5 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19343/24 Silvana MITRESKA against North Macedonia lodged on 1 July 2024 communicated on 17 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged incidents in which the applicant suffered physical and psychological violence from her cohabiting partner, with whom she has a child. On 21 April 2019 the applicant’s partner allegedly grabber her by the neck, insulted, punched and kicked her. Following a remittal, on 15 February 2024 the second-instance court discontinued the criminal proceedings against him in relation to the charge of domestic violence finding that the applicant’s criminal complaint had been lodged more than three months after the incident, contrary to domestic law. In a second set of criminal proceedings concerning an incident which took place in the night between 7 and 8   September 2020 during which her partner allegedly insulted, kicked and punched her, the proceedings against her partner were discontinued by a court’s decision dated 23   April 2024 due to the prosecutor’s withdrawal from prosecution. The prosecutor found that the said incident was the same one for which the proceedings against her partner had been discontinued by the court on 15   February 2024. The applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to fulfil their positive obligations in relation to the acts of domestic violence perpetrated against her and their failure to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations of domestic violence. QUESTIONS TO THE PAR²TIES 1.     Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see A.E. v. Bulgaria , no.   53891/20, §§   84-89, 23   May 2023, Buturugă v. Romania , no.   56867/15, §§   60-62, 11   February 2020, Volodina v. Russia , no.   41261/17, §§   76-77, 9   July 2019 and Valiulienė v. Lithuania , no.   33234/07, §§   65-66, 73-75, 26   March 2013)? In particular, have they provided an adequate legal framework for the applicant’s protection against the alleged acts of domestic violence?   2.     Have the State authorities complied with their procedural obligation to investigate the alleged acts of domestic violence against the applicant   (see Tunikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   55974/16 and 3 others, §   114, 14   December   2021)?