CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6342/24 Nikolinche RADEVSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 21 February 2024 communicated on 16 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the manner in which the domestic authorities established the contact rights of the applicant’s former husband (“the father”) with their minor daughter of whom the applicant has custody. The Social Care Centre (“the Centre”) decided that the daughter would spend with the father every first Friday (from 10 a.m. until 10 a.m. the next day) and every second Tuesday in the month (from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.), and further determined a schedule in which the daughter would spend her birthdays and public holidays with her parents. The Centre also decided that the contact schedule could be changed with a mutual agreement of the parents. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the administrative courts at two levels upheld the Centre’s decision, despite the applicant’s arguments that her work schedule was organised in shifts and inevitably variable, which – given that her work-related income was essential for her subsistence – made it impossible for her to respect the Centre’s decision, and that the father would not agree to more flexible contact schedule due to their conflictual relationship. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to duly consider her arguments regarding her work schedule when establishing the contact rights of her former husband with their daughter.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to duly consider the applicant’s arguments regarding her work schedule when setting out the father’s contact rights with their daughter (for the general principles see, for example, Strand   Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§   202-06, 10   September 2019; Širvinskas v. Lithuania , no. 21243/17, §§   92-96, 23   July 2019; and Petrov and X v. Russia , no. 23608/16, §§   98 ‑ 101, 23   October 2018)?