Published on 16 May 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 20949/21
Mirjana MITREVSKA
against North Macedonia
lodged on 9 April 2021
communicated on 29 April 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that she has been unable to obtain information about her biological origins.
In 2017 the applicant lodged requests with the Social Work Centre and the State Adoption Commission to provide her with complete documentation regarding her adoption, which had taken place in 1977. She submitted that she had been diagnosed with a medical condition, due to which her doctor had requested her family’s medical history. The authorities refused her request, on the grounds that, under the relevant law, the requested information was considered an official secret and could not be provided. The applicant then asked the Social Work Centre to adopt a decision that could be appealed against, but she was notified that the law did not provide for such a possibility.
She initiated proceedings before the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for “administrative inactivity” (молчење на администрацијата), in which she complained that the authorities had not issued an official decision with regard to her request. She also argued that, at the time of her adoption, the information related to the adoption had not been classified as an official secret under the relevant law. However, the State Adoption Commission, part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, notified her that the authorities had responded to her request properly.
The applicant lodged an administrative action against the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, but it was dismissed by two levels of administrative courts, with the final decision adopted by the High Administrative Court on 29 June 2020. They found that there had been no “administrative inactivity”, as the authorities had responded to the applicant’s submissions. Moreover, the courts held that she had not exercised any right guaranteed under the Family Act for which the authorities would be obliged to adopt a decision. The courts also held that, according to the relevant law, the information related to her adoption was an official secret.
She complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her right to private and family life was violated in view of the fact that she was unable to obtain information about her biological origins. She complains that the authorities failed to make an effort to establish whether her biological parents would be willing to see her and failed to examine whether a fair balance had been struck between the competing interests: on the one hand, the applicant’s right to have access to information about her origins and, on the other, the biological parents’ right to remain anonymous.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, under Article 8 of the Convention, in view of her inability to obtain information about her biological origins (see, mutatis mutandis, Godelli v. Italy, no. 33783/09, §§ 47-52, 25 September 2012)? In particular, did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the rights of the applicant and any competing interests?