CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36730/23 M.P. and N.B.K. against North Macedonia lodged on 5 October 2023 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to protect the applicants from the publication and dissemination in 2020 on several social networks of their sexually explicit video and/or photos, allegedly created by or shared with their former boyfriend F.G. in 2013 (regarding the first applicant, who was still a minor at that time) and in 2017 (regarding the second applicant). In September 2020 the applicants lodged a joint criminal complaint with the public prosecutors’ office against F.G. and other unknown perpetrators for abuse of personal data (Article 149 of the Criminal Code, in respect of both applicants) and for creating and distributing child pornography (Article   193-a of the Criminal Code, in respect of the first applicant). The first-instance public prosecutor heard the applicants, F.G. and five witnesses who had shared the explicit material with each other, and obtained information from one social network. In June 2023 the public prosecutors at two levels dismissed the criminal complaint against F.G. finding no evidence that he had shared the explicit material. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic authorities failed to effectively protect their right to respect for their private life, that the applicable domestic legal framework was flawed and that the investigation into the events was ineffective and slow.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the respondent State discharge its obligation under Article   8 of the Convention to provide the applicants with an effective protection against the non-consensual dissemination of their intimate video and/or photos? Was the criminal law framework applicable at the relevant time adequate to afford the applicants the requisite protection? Did the domestic authorities conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into the events in question (see M.Ș.D. v.   Romania , no. 28935/21, §§ 115-59, 3 December 2024)?