CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 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 } .sEB4DEF1F { font-family:Arial; color:#161616 } .s17464775 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#161616 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 16 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7375/25 Artesh Salim IBRAHIM against Denmark lodged on 28 February 2025 communicated on 27 May 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS On 8 November 2021, during an arrest, the applicant was exposed to pepper spray in the face by a police officer. The applicant complained to the Independent Police Complaints Authority ( Den Uafhængige Politiklagemyndighed , “IPCA”) about “a possible criminal behaviour”. On 1 April 2024 the Director of Public Prosecution decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officer, and on 18   February   2025 he refused the applicant’s request to reopen the investigation subsequent to IPCA’s decision of 31 October 2024 holding that the pepper spray exposure was deemed unnecessary, exaggerated, and disproportional. It appears that the case is currently pending before the IPCA. The applicant complained that he was subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that the investigation thereof had been ineffective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in particular, should the four-months’ time-limit be calculated from 1 April 2024 (see, inter alia , Stanimirović v.   Serbia , no.   26088/06, §§ 29 and 33, 18 October 2011 and Jørgensen v.   Denmark (dec.), no.   30173/12, §§   36, 52-54, 28 June 2016, and the cases cited therein)?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, when in connection with his arrest on 8 November 2021, he was exposed to pepper spray in the face ( see, for example, Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 100-103), ECHR 2015)?   3.     Was the investigation by the domestic authorities concerning the applicant’s complaint that he was exposed to pepper spray in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, among others, Bouyid v.   Belgium   [GC], cited above, §§   114-23, and Mocanu and Others v.   Romania   [GC], nos.   10865/09   and 2 others, §§   316-25 ECHR 2014 (extracts)?