CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 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 9 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39386/25 Magnus Mæhle BERGGREN against Denmark lodged on 1 December 2025 communicated on 20 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 17 December 2024, while the applicant was serving a prison sentence and placed in an observation cell, two prison guards sprayed him with pepper spray. The concrete circumstances were disputed. Subsequently, the applicant was taken to a secure cell. By a final decision of 1 August 2025, the Regional Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation finding that even if the investigation continued, it would not lead to the prosecution of any of the prison guards involved. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention (the substantive limb) that pepper spray had been used against him. He also complained that the investigation had been ineffective (the procedural limb), notably because it had not been clarified whether entering the observation cell and deploying pepper spray had been necessary. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, and was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, notably, El-Asmar v.   Denmark , no. 27753/19, 3 October 2023)?