CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 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 } .s312E9B94 { font-family:Arial; color:#2c2c2c } .s35AE85A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#2c2c2c } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 29313/23 and 12003/24 Petar BUZHEVSKI and Ivancho BUZHEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 14 July 2023 and 8 April 2024 respectively communicated on 17 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged use of disproportionate force against the applicants by police officers, while the applicants were detained and questioned in a police station in relation to a suspicion of participating in a fight, and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident (application no. 29313/23), as well as the length of the subsequent criminal proceedings against the police officers (both applications). The public prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint lodged by the applicants for ill-treatment in the conduct of official duties, finding no elements of an offence to be prosecuted ex officio . The applicants took over the prosecution as subsidiary prosecutors. The domestic courts joined the criminal proceedings with those concerning a private criminal complaint for bodily injuries that the applicants had previously lodged against the police officers. A court-commissioned medical report indicated that the first applicant had suffered minor bodily injuries, including facial bruising, a fractured nose and wounds on the left side of his waistline and chest. The second applicant had also suffered minor bodily injures on his right hand and the left side of his face. After several remittals, the domestic courts stayed the criminal proceedings (which had lasted for ten years and six days), as the prosecution of the two offences had become time-barred in 2019 and 2023, and instructed the applicants to pursue their compensation claim in civil proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the applicants’ complaint about the undue length of the proceedings and awarded the first and the second applicant approximately EUR 320 and EUR 160, respectively. In application no. 29313/23 the applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the police officers employed excessive and disproportionate force against them. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, they further complain that the investigation into the use of force was not official and adequate and that the ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers were lengthy. In application no. 12003/24, the applicants complain that the criminal proceedings against the police officers were lengthy, and that the award granted by the Supreme Court in respect of the undue length was insufficient. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the police authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015; Andonovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 24312/10, §§ 95 et seq., 23 July 2015; and Kitanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   15191/12, §§ 76 et seq., 22 January 2015)?   2.   Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Bouyid , cited above, §§ 114-23; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 182-85, ECHR   2012; Uğur v. Turkey , no.   37308/05, § 105, 13 January 2015; and İzci v. Turkey , no. 42606/05, §§ 72-73, 23 July 2013) was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3. (a) Does Article 6 § 1 of the Convention apply under its civil limb to the criminal proceedings against the police officers (see Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos.   6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 76-93, 24 September 2024)?   (b) If so, can the applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34? In particular, did the sum awarded by the Supreme Court provide them with sufficient and appropriate redress capable of removing the applicants’ victim status in respect of their complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers (see Adži-Spirkoska and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), nos. 38914/05 and 17879/05, 3   November 2011, and Petrović v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30721/15, §§ 20-21, 22 June 2017)?   (c) If the applicants can still claim to be victims, has the length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §§ 43-44, 27 June 2000; Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 207-09, 25 June 2019; and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia , no. 9849/15, § 89, 30 July 2020)?