CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 12 mars 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  European Commission of Human Rights     Application No. 10929/84   Jon NIELSEN   against     DENMARK   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 12 March 1987)     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page     I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 14) ..................................    1      A.    The application         (paras. 2 - 3) ...................................    1      B.    The proceedings         (paras. 4 - 10) ..................................    1      C.    The present Report         (paras. 11 - 14) .................................    2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 15 - 61) .................................    3      A.    The particular facts of the case         (paras. 15 - 44) .................................    3      B.    Relevant domestic law         (paras. 45 - 61) .................................   11           a) The Danish Constitution            (paras. 45 - 46) ..............................   11           b) The Custody and Guardianship of Children Act            (paras. 47 - 50) ..............................   12           c) The Social Aid Act            (paras. 51 - 56) ..............................   14           d) The Mental Health Act            (paras. 57 - 59) ..............................   16           e) Extract of the Report on the Principles on            Involuntary Treatment in the Field of            Psychiatry, no. 1068/1986 (paras. 60 - 61) ....   18     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES         (paras. 62 - 98) .................................   20      A.    The applicant         (paras. 63 - 69) .................................   20      B.    The Government         (paras. 70 - 98) .................................   21   IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 99 - 140) ................................   26      A.    Points at issue         (para. 99) .......................................   26      B.    Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention         (paras. 100 - 129) ...............................   26      C.    Article 5 para. 1(a) - (f) of the Convention         (paras. 130 - 133) ...............................   33      D.    Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention         (paras. 134 - 139) ...............................   33      E.    Recapitulation         (para. 140) ......................................   34   Partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   J.A. Frowein .........................................   35   Dissenting opinion of Mr.   G. Jörundsson ..................   38     APPENDIX I           History of the proceedings before                     the Commission .......................   39   APPENDIX II          Decision on the admissibility of                     the application ......................   41     I.       INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicant, Jon Nielsen, is a Danish citizen.   He was born out of wedlock in 1971 and resides in Copenhagen.   Before the Commission he is represented by his father, Mr.   Henning Nielsen, and by Mr.   Jørgen Jacobsen, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.           The Government of Denmark are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Tyge Lehmann, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   3.       The case concerns the applicant who in 1983, after being the subject of a custody dispute between his parents, was placed in a child psychiatric ward of a State hospital against his wish but in accordance with the wishes of the holder of the parental custody.   The applicant considers that he was deprived of his liberty contrary to Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention and alleges that he did not have the possibility of taking proceedings by which the lawfulness of the detention could be decided by a court as provided by Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   4.       The application was introduced on 15 February 1984 and registered on 3 May 1984.   The Commission considered the case on 2 October 1984 and on 7 May 1985 and decided on the latter date to give notice of the application to the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure and to invite them to present before 19 July 1985 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were dated 19 July 1985 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 7 October 1985.   5.       Legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure was granted to the applicant on 11 September 1985.   6.       On 5 December 1985 the Commission decided to invite the parties to appear before it at a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case.   7.       The hearing took place on 10 March 1986.   The applicant, who was present himself, was represented by his father, Mr.   Henning Nielsen, by Mr.   Jørgen Jacobsen, and by Mr.   Anders Boelskifte as Adviser. The Government were represented by Mr.   Tyge Lehmann as Agent, Mr.   Gunnar Blæhr of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Adviser, Mr.   Torben Melchior of the Ministry of Justice as Counsel and Mr.   Bo Vesterdorf of the Ministry of Justice as Adviser.   8.       Following the hearing, the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the case which they wished to make.   The Government submitted additional observations on 13 June 1986, a copy of which was transmitted to the applicant.   No further observations were received from the applicant.   10.      After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Consultations with the parties took place between 2 May and 15 July 1986.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following Members being present:                 MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   C. A. NØRGAARD                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL           The text of this Report was adopted on 12 March 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is   (i)      to establish the facts, and   (ii)     to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose         a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under         the Convention.   13.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   14.      The full text of the pleadings of the parties, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     A.       The particular facts of the case   15.      The parents of the applicant, who was born on 7 April 1971, lived together from 1968 until 1973.   They were not married and accordingly only the mother had parental rights over the child.   After the relationship between the parents broke down in 1973, the applicant remained with the mother and the father's access to him was initially effected on a "gentlemen's agreement" basis.   However, this system did not function well and in 1974 the father obtained a specific access right through the competent authorities.   16.      It appears that a closer relationship developed between the applicant and his father over the next years.   According to Danish legislation at that time, however, it was not possible to petition the courts to have the custody rights transferred from the mother to the father.   Therefore, the applicant's father introduced an application with the European Commission of Human Rights complaining inter alia that he had no effective possibility of obtaining from a court a determination on the merits covering the custody of his child and that he thus was treated differently from fathers of children born in wedlock.   During the proceedings before the Commission the Custody and Guardianship of Children Act was changed.   The Act thereafter provided that a court decision might vest parental custody in the father of a child born out of wedlock, when certain specified conditions were fulfilled (Section 28 para. 2 of the Act).   This change of the law came into force on 1 October 1978.   The Commission, therefore, on 5 December 1978 rejected the application since the applicant's father could no longer claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of the Convention (No. 7658/76, Dec. 5.12.78, D.R. 15, p. 128).   17.      In the meantime, and until the summer of 1979, the father's right of access to the applicant had been implemented on a regular basis.   However, in 1979 the applicant apparently refused to return to the mother after a two-week holiday with the father.   The social authorities were contacted and, with the consent of all parties,   it was decided to place the applicant in a children's home.   However, he disappeared from there and returned to the father who, on 6 August 1979, instituted proceedings before the City Court of Ballerup (Ballerup ret) in order to have the custody rights transferred to him according to the new law.   Father and child furthermore went "underground" until 8 October 1979, when the father was arrested by the police.   He was released on 12 October 1979.   With the consent of the mother, the social authorities, on 9 October 1979, placed the applicant in the Copenhagen county hospital, Nordvang, Department for Child Psychiatry.   18.      On 23 October 1979 the father's right of access to the applicant was suspended.   The father appealed against the decision to the Ministry of Justice, which, however, upheld the decision on 12 November 1979.   19.      In a letter of 23 November 1979 to the hospital authorities, the chief physician at the county hospital Nordvang wrote:           "(the applicant) was admitted to the hospital on 9.10.1979.         The admittance was in accordance with the wishes of the         holder of the custody rights and fully supported by the         child.   (The applicant) has all the time been happy about         his stay here and has never expressed a wish to leave.         On the contrary, we have felt obliged to protect the child         from more kidnapping attempts and have rejected visits from         suspicious persons trying to contact the boy who hardly knew         these persons.   To talk about detention in a psychiatric         ward among mental patients or administrative deprivation of         liberty is thus complete nonsense ...           When admitted the boy was strongly affected by the         events in question and thus in need of child psychiatric         treatment.   He has improved somewhat during his stay here but         is still considerably affected by the situation and will still         need psychiatric treatment.   This could very well be carried         out as out-patient treatment but the mother is at present         worried that this would lead to kidnapping attempts by the         father ...           An impartial child psychiatric examination does not         only involve an examination of the child in question but         also thorough talks with both parents.   Since this is not         possible, I have adjourned the case and cannot therefore         reach any conclusions."   20.      The applicant disappeared from Nordvang on 11 December 1979 and hereafter lived in hiding with his father.   21.      The above-mentioned court proceedings before the City Court of Ballerup concerning parental rights ended on 11 July 1980.   The Court did not find a transfer of custody to the father to be in the interest of the child.   22.      The applicant's father appealed against this judgment to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret).   On 25 November 1980 the parties agreed that the applicant should undergo a child psychiatric examination by Professor A.   This examination resulted in a statement by Professor A of 16 February 1981 in which he concluded inter alia:           "After considering the case, I find it in the best         interest of the child that the custody rights remain with         the mother.   Since the boy is developing nervously it is         recommended that he and the mother, after (the applicant)         has returned to her, get child psychiatric support. ..."   23.      On 9 March 1981 the Court of Appeal upheld the City Court's judgment.   The applicant nevertheless remained in hiding with his father, staying with various families in Denmark.   24.      In November 1982, after having lived "underground" for approximately 3 years, the applicant's father again instituted proceedings before the City Court of Ballerup in order to have the custody rights transferred to him.   Since he was wanted by the police, suspected of having kidnapped the applicant, the father did not attend the hearing but the father's lawyer pointed out that the applicant, now 12 years old, had lived with his father for 3 ½ years, obviously according to his own wish.   To normalise the applicant's life it would be necessary to transfer the custody rights to the father.   25.      The applicant's mother maintained that the applicant had been harmed due to the abnormal circumstances under which he had lived with his father.   She was therefore determined to accept Professor A's offer concerning support from the State hospital child psychiatric ward (Rigshospitalets børnepsykiatriske afdeling) for a transitional period and to accept the professor's advice concerning the father's access to the applicant.   26.      The City Court decided on 11 April 1983 that the circumstances of the case did not reveal a need for a transfer of the custody rights.   27.      The applicant's father appealed against this judgment to the Court of Appeal.   The applicant and his father were present on 22 September 1983 when the Court of Appeal pronounced judgment in which the City Court judgment was upheld.   Leave was subsequently granted by the Ministry of Justice to bring the case before the Supreme Court (Højesteret).   After the hearing in the Court of Appeal on 22 September 1983 the father was arrested by the police and charged with acting contrary to Section 215 read in conjunction with Section 261 paras. 1 and 2 of the Danish Penal Code (depriving the mother of the exercise of her parental rights).   On 27 March 1984, the father, who had been detained on remand since his arrest, was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment by the Court of Appeal sitting with a jury.   28.      In the meantime the mother requested, advised by the social authorities of Herlev County and Professor A, that the applicant be admitted to the State hospital child psychiatric ward since it was clear that the applicant did not want to stay with her.   After his father's arrest the applicant was then placed in a children's home until he was admitted to the ward on 26 September 1983.   29.      According to Professor A, who was responsible for the applicant's treatment at the State hospital, the procedure followed in connection with the admission was the usual one for the ward in that the holder of the parental rights requested the admission, the family doctor provided the entry card and the ward accepted the admission.   30.      With regard to the factual circumstances of the applicant's stay at the State hospital there is a certain discrepancy between the observations of the Government and those submitted by the applicant's representative.   31.      The Government in particular refer to the following statements submitted by Professor A to the Medical Health Officer of Copenhagen (Københavns Stadslæge) and the Department of Health and Social Security (Social- og Sundhedsforvaltningen) on 6 January and 7 March 1984 respectively:           "(The applicant) has expressed his dislike of staying here,         but at no time has he attempted to run away.   We have not         been able to and have not wanted to prevent him from running         away, which he could have done, inter alia, when he together         with the other children left the ward e.g. to visit museums,         to go for a hair cut.   Also in this respect he has been in         hospital on the same terms as the other patients of the         ward. ...           The treatment involves environmental therapy at the ward         and regular talks with (the applicant). ...           At no time has he been given medicamental treatment. ...           Since 23 October 1983 his mother has visited the ward         regularly during the usual visiting hours on Sundays and         Wednesdays.   Since 11 November 1983 (the applicant) has         visited his mother at home.   The visits were at first short,         but since 10 December 1983 he has been able to spend the         weekends there.   Christmas Eve and Christmas Day were spent         with his mother and so was New Year's Day. ...           ...   During the treatment at the child psychiatric ward         since New Year 1984, including environmental therapy and         personal talks, (the applicant) has continued to grow more         relaxed, more extrovert and spontaneous and he is able to         show his feelings better.   This applied both to his         relationship with the staff and with the other children in         the ward.   During the entire stay at the hospital he has as         before, apart from the first couple of days, been allowed to         move about freely just like the other children.   In other         words, he has gone to the library on his own, has joined         visits to museums in town, been to the swimming pool,         skating rink, etc.           His relationship with his mother also underwent a similar         favourable development in the same period.   He saw his         mother every weekend and participated in the family life         together with his mother, her friend, and his sister.   At         first he was a bit shy to leave his home, apparently for         fear of being recognised.   On 2 February 1984 he started         school again in his old class, and the ward prepared his         return together with the school.   He has taken up contact         with his old school mates when visiting his mother during         weekends.   In connection with the school's winter holiday         he had his longest stay with his mother from Friday         10 February until Wednesday 15 February 1984.   During this         holiday the whole family went for a couple of days to his         mother's parents in Jutland.   It was obvious that (the         applicant) enjoyed this family outing ...           I wish to add that the patients at the ward are not         'compulsorily detained' in the usual sense of the expression         as referred to in the Danish Mental Health Act.   The         child psychiatric ward of the State hospital is an ordinary         hospital ward run in principle on the same conditions as the         other wards of the State hospital.   As the ward is placed on         the seventh floor in a building with a number of somatic         wards, the main entrance of each block has a latch (smæklås)         to   prevent the children of the ward, some of whom may be         inclined to rush around impulsively, from running about in         the hospital or running into town, and possibly be a         nuisance to the patients in other wards of the hospital or         the children might expose themselves to danger.   This         measure is to be compared with the locked front door in a         family house.   As mentioned above the children often go out         with the staff, e.g. to playgrounds, to visit museums.         During the hospital stay the children are normally not         confined to bed, and the ward offers many possibilities for         different activities under familiar conditions.   Thus it is         entirely misleading ... to talk about 'institutional         detention'."   32.      Due to the special circumstances of the case and due to a request from the applicant's representative, the National Board of Health (Sundhedsstyrelsen) carried out an investigation of the case. The Medical Health Officer of Copenhagen was requested to visit the ward in which the applicant was placed.   In her report of 8 February 1984 she stated:   "The child psychiatric ward currently keeps 18 children in continuous treatment, the average period of therapy being about five or six months.   The children are divided by age into three groups of six, each with its own delimited area. (The applicant) is placed in the section for adolescents, he has a room of his own furnished with a plank bed, small table, bulletin board, chair and desk.   The room clearly reflects his interest in building models; on the floor there is a pair of track shoes. (The applicant) is not at home while I am there but in school. During the past weeks he has been attending the same elementary school he used to go to and where he apparently feels at ease. Every day he goes to and from the school by cab, alone.   The ward has recreational rooms where (the applicant) can spend time on carpentry work.   There is also a lounge, a dining room and a kitchen.   The children take turns in helping with the cooking, setting of tables, etc.   Much is done to make the children feel at home.   (The applicant) takes swimming lessons together with other children in the ward accompanied by one of the staff members.   He has also gone sledge riding and may visit school friends.   The entrance door to all children's wards is locked, partly to prevent the young children from running all over the hospital grounds where they might hurt themselves in lifts or lose their way.   The entrance door is locked also in order to minimise the substantial risk of theft.   (The applicant) is allowed to leave the ward if he asks for permission to go, for instance to the library.   He moves around unaccompanied on these occasions.   My conclusion is that (the applicant) is staying in an environment as similar as possible to a real home and that he is by no means kept there against his will.   On the contrary, he is allowed to move about outside the ward all by himself or in the company of staff members and/or other children.   He has established rather good contacts with a boy of his own age (hospitalised on account of anorexia nervosa)."   33.      In its report of 15 February 1984 the National Board of Health concluded:   "On the present material the National Board of Health does not find any reason for not approving Professor (A's) medical evaluation the essence of which was that (the applicant) was trapped in a neurotic state requiring treatment, a development which the Board views as the result of the most unusual circumstances in which (the applicant) had been living with his father during the past few years.   If these circumstances had continued, the risk of a further move towards a personality-stunting, chronically neurotic state of mind would, in the opinion of the Board, have been extremely likely.   Nor does the Board see any reason for criticising the medical treatment which (the applicant) received while hospitalised and which was designed to integrate him in normal human relationships, cf. (the Medical Health Officer's) report, and included talks at regular intervals with (the applicant) and his mother, since the Board, things being what they were, would find it irreconcilable with the welfare of (the applicant) to deny him relevant treatment.   According to the information available to the Board (the applicant) is now so well that he may probably be discharged by the end of February 1984.   By then, his hospital term will not have exceeded the average term. While hospitalised (the applicant) has been allowed to visit his father regularly at Vestre Fængsel (prison).   To sum up: The National Board of Health sees no reason for criticising Professor (A) or the child psychiatric ward of the State hospital for their medical treatment of (the applicant)."   34.      Whilst not repudiating the above statements, the applicant's representative has submitted the following:           "The child psychiatric ward is definitely a closed ward.         The door to the ward was locked and (the applicant) was         totally unable to receive visitors except in agreement         with and under the surveillance of the staff at the ward         ...   In other words:   the applicant was unable to leave         the hospital if he so wished. ...           (He) was not permitted to phone (his father's counsel) or         his father, who was in prison charged with the kidnapping of         the applicant, who had actually been the active party in the         kidnapping.   (The applicant) was under almost constant         surveillance:   he was unable to make social contacts;         persons from outside the hospital were unable to get in         contact with him without special permission ..."   35.      The applicant stayed at the child psychiatric ward until 22 February 1984, the day on which he should have been discharged to his mother's home.   However, he disappeared from the hospital and lived with various families in Jutland until 8 March 1984 when he was found by the Police and brought back to the State hospital in Copenhagen and re-admitted to the ward at the request of his mother. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 30 March 1984 and placed in the care of a family not officially known to the father.     *      *      *   36.      By letter of 23 October 1983 to the Ministry of Justice, the applicant's representatives questioned the lawfulness of the applicant's detention at the State hospital for child psychiatry contrary to his own wish.   They maintained inter alia that the admission of the applicant to the hospital was unlawful since the provisions of the Mental Health Act on compulsory admission had not been observed.   The Ministry of Justice submitted the matter to the chief psychiatrist at the psychiatric ward of the hospital who inter alia stated that the applicant had not been admitted to the ward pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Act, but pursuant to a decision made by the holder of the parental rights.   At no time had the applicant been considered mentally ill.   37.      On 28 December 1983 the Ministry accordingly replied that the applicant was not placed there in accordance with the Mental Health Act, but according to a decision by the mother as holder of the custody rights and therefore the Ministry refused to decide in the matter.   38.      On 1 January 1984 the applicant's representatives nevertheless petitioned the courts, according to chapter 43 a of the Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven).   They wanted a decision on the lawfulness of the applicant's placing in the State hospital.   The defendant in this case was the Ministry of Justice which pleaded dismissal, maintaining that the applicant had not been subjected to administrative deprivation of liberty pursuant to the Mental Health Act.   39.      By a court order of 6 January 1984 the Copenhagen City Court (Københavns byret) upheld the plea for dismissal of the case made by the Ministry of Justice on the following grounds:   "considering that (the applicant) (...) has been admitted to the child psychiatric ward of the State hospital, Copenhagen, on the basis of a decision made by (the mother), who is the holder of parental rights, (the applicant's) detention at the State hospital is not covered by Act, No. 118 of 13 April 1938 on the stay in hospital of mentally ill persons and therefore not subject to judicial review according to chapter 43 a of the Administration of Justice Act.   For this very reason the petition shall have to be dismissed."   40.      The applicant's representatives appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal maintaining, in particular, that if the applicant had not been a minor he could have challenged the lawfulness of his detention in the State hospital before the courts.   Although the holder of the custody rights according to Section 19 of the Custody and Guardianship of Children Act had an extensive right to decide over the child such a right should be subject to certain restrictions.   A totally involuntary detention ought to be an interference which could only be carried out administratively and thus under the conditions mentioned in Art. 71 para. 6 of the Danish Constitution despite the fact that the decision was carried out with the mother's consent.   41.      The State Attorney (Kammeradvokaten) again maintained that the case did not concern administrative deprivation of liberty and was thus outside the scope of chapter 43 a of the Administration of Justice Act.   In the alternative he alleged that if the case disclosed deprivation of liberty within the meaning of chapter 43 a the father would be unable to act on behalf of the child since at that time he had no, and had never had any, parental rights over the child.   42.      Rejecting the State Attorney's latter argument, the Court of Appeal wrote in its decision of 15 February 1984:           "The question whether a minor should be subjected to         treatment in a hospital is normally decided by the holder of         the parental right and such measures cannot be challenged by         means of chapter 43 a of the Administration of Justice Act.           Concerning the treatment of mentally deranged persons inter         alia in public hospitals special rules apply according to         Act No. 118 of 13 April 1938, cf. chapter 43 a of the         Administration of Justice Act.   From what has been         established in this case it appears that (the applicant)         does not suffer from any mental illness and according to the         above there has been no question of admittance for treatment         of a mental illness.   The decision to admit (the applicant)         to the State Hospital Department of Child Psychiatry after         the disturbances he has been through and the decision on his         temporary stay there is taken by his mother, who has the         parental rights over him.   The appellant's claim         concerning judicial review according to chapter 43 a of the         Administration of Justice Act cannot therefore be complied         with and the judgment of the Copenhagen City Court to         dismiss the case is upheld."   43.      According to Section 371 of the Administration of Justice Act the applicant's representatives asked the Ministry of Justice, who was the defendant in the case, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, on 14 March 1984 the Ministry refused leave to appeal since the Ministry was of the opinion that the judgment would not be overruled by the Supreme Court.     *      *      *     44.      The question whether to transfer the custody rights from the mother to the father had, as mentioned above, been brought before the Supreme Court following the decision of the Court of Appeal on 22 September 1983.   Before the Supreme Court Professor A maintained, in a statement of 19 June 1984, that it would be in the best interest of the applicant that the parental rights remained with the mother. This opinion was supported by the Medico-Legal Council (Retslægerådet) in its statement of 9 August 1984.   On 21 August 1984 the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts' decisions and awarded custody over the applicant to his father.   The applicant now lives with his father.   B.       Relevant domestic law   a)       Protection of personal liberty according to the Danish Constitution (Danmarks Riges Grundlov)   45.      The right of personal liberty is protected according to Section 71 of the Danish Constitution, which reads:           "§71 Stk. 1.   Den personlige frihed er ukrænkelig.         Ingen dansk borger kan på grund af sin politiske eller         religiøse overbevisning eller sin afstamning underkastes         nogen form for frihedsberøvelse.           Stk. 2.   Frihedsberøvelse kan kun finde sted med hjemmel i         loven.           Stk. 3.   Enhver, der anholdes, skal inden 24 timer stilles         for en dommer.   Hvis den anholdte ikke straks kan sættes på         fri fod, skal dommeren ved en af grunde ledsaget kendelse,         der afsiges snarest muligt og senest inden 3 dage, afgøre, om         han skal fængsles, og, hvis han kan løslades mod sikkerhed,         bestemme dennes art og størrelse. ......           Stk. 4.   Den kendelse, som dommeren afsiger, kan af         vedkommende straks særskilt indbringes for højere ret.           Stk. 5.   Ingen kan underkastes varetægtsfængsel for en         forseelse, som kun kan medføre straf af bøde eller hæfte.           Stk. 6.   Uden for strafferetsplejen skal lovligheden af         en frihedsberøvelse, der ikke er besluttet af en dømmende         myndighed og som ikke har hjemmel i lovgivningen om udlændinge,         på begæring af den, der er berøvet sin frihed, eller den,         der handler på hans vegne, forelægges de almindelige domstole         eller anden dømmende myndighed til prøvelse.   Nærmere regler         herom fastsættes ved lov.           Stk. 7.   Behandlingen af de i stk. 6 nævnte personer undergives         et af folketinget valgt tilsyn, hvortil de pågældende skal         have adgang til at rette henvendelse."   Translation           "Section 71.   (1) Personal liberty shall be inviolable.         No Danish subject shall, in any manner whatsoever, be         deprived of his liberty because of his political or         religious convictions or because of his descent.           (2) A person shall be deprived of his liberty only where         this is warranted by law.           (3) Any person who is taken into custody shall be brought         before a judge within twenty-four hours.   Where the person         taken into custody cannot be immediately released, the judge         shall decide, in an order to be given as soon as possible         and at the latest within three days, stating the grounds,         whether the person taken into custody shall be committed to         prison; and in cases where he can be released on bail, shall         also determine the nature and the amount of such bail ...           (4) The pronouncement of the judge may be at once separately         appealed against to a higher court of justice by the person         concerned.           (5) No person shall be remanded in custody for an offence         which can involve only punishment by fine or light         detention.           (6) Outside criminal procedure, the legality of deprivation         of liberty not executed by order of a judicial authority,         and not warranted by legislation relating to aliens, shall         at the request of the person so deprived of his liberty, or         at the request of any person acting on his behalf, be         brought before the ordinary courts of justice or other         judicial authority for decision.   Rules governing this         procedure shall be provided by statute.           (7) The persons referred to in sub-section (6) shall be         under supervision by a board set up by Parliament, to         which board the persons concerned shall be permitted to         apply."   46.      The provision forms part of the protection of the citizen from the State and extends to interventions decided on and effected by public authorities.   b)       The Custody and Guardianship of Children Act (Myndighedsloven)   47.      The Danish rules on parental custody which were in force in 1983 are laid down in the Custody and Guardianship of Children Act. Children and young persons under 18 years of age are under parental custody unless they have contracted marriage.   48.      According to Section 19 of the Custody and Guardianship of Children Act it is the duty and responsibility of the holder of the parental custody of a child born out of wedlock to provide for the care and welfare of the child and the holder of the custody has powers to decide on the personal conditions of the child.   Section 19 reads as follows:           "§ 19.   Forældremyndigheden medfører pligt til at sørge         for barnets person og beføj