CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 février 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 23 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47782/22 Nikola KALCHOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 30 September 2022 communicated on 6 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged use of disproportionate force of a chief prison officer against the applicant, on 22 December 2020, while he was serving a prison sentence at Bitola State Prison, and the alleged lack of effective investigation into the incident. On 5 July 2021 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the chief prison officer, submitting that the latter had hit him on the face and chest, because he had asked to be given medical treatment. He further argued that after the incident, another prisoner had called an ambulance, and that the ambulance doctor had examined the applicant. The public prosecutor heard the applicant and four prisoners who had been present at the time of the incident, one of whom testified that the chief prison officer had hit the applicant while he was seated, whereas another testified that chief prison officer had not hit the applicant. The prosecutor further heard the chief prison officer and four other officers, the director of the prison, as well as the ambulance doctor and nurse. The prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint, finding that the chief prison officer had used minimal force which had been necessary to overpower the applicant so that he would sit down. The prosecutor further found that the incident had taken place in a room under video surveillance, but that the video recordings had not been stored, as the prison officers who had watched them had found no reasons to save them. Furthermore, a tablet (owned by the prison) which (according to the applicant) had been used by the other prisoners present at the incident to take photos of his injuries, could not be examined as it had been severely damaged, and the photos could not be retrieved. The prosecutor further relied on the statement of the ambulance doctor and nurse, according to which the applicant had not complained of being beaten and there had been no visible injuries on his body. On 31 May 2022 the second-instance public prosecutor confirmed the decision, without expressly addressing the applicant’s arguments that the prisoner who had called the ambulance had not been heard, that the ambulance’s record concerning its intervention had not been properly drawn up, that no report concerning the incident had been submitted by the prison to the Directorate for Execution of Sanctions as required by law, and that no expert report had been commissioned concerning the telephone of a lawyer to whom the other prisoners had sent the photos. The prosecutor also did not expressly address the applicant’s submission in which he had submitted a photo allegedly showing his injuries following the incident. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the chief prison officer used disproportionate force against him and that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective, independent and prompt investigation into his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the prison authorities in breach of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   81-90 and 100-8, ECHR 2015; Ostroveņecs v. Latvia , no. 36043/13, §§   88-95, 5 October 2017; Borbála Kiss v. Hungary , no. 59214/11, § 36, 26   June 2012; and Artyomov v.   Russia , no. 14146/02, §§ 143-57, 27   May   2010 )?   2.     Was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the alleged ill- ‑ treatment of the applicant in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see El- ‑ Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no.   39630/09, §§   182-85, ECHR   2012; Bouyid , cited above, §§ 127-31; Perkov v. Croatia , no. 33754/16, §§ 62-68, 20 September 2022; Ostroveņecs , cited above, §§   77- ‑ 78; Archip v. Romania , no. 49608/08, §§   66-70, 27 September 2011; see also , mutatis mutandis, A.J. and L.E. v.   Spain , nos. 40312/23 and   40388/23, §§ 93-95, 23 October 2025)?