CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 15 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 51072/15 Tim Henrik Brun HANSEN against Denmark lodged on 9 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a final judgment of 26 November 1996 the applicant was convicted, inter alia, of the attempted rape of a 10-year-old girl under aggravated circumstances. Having regard to the applicant’s previous convictions in 1989 and 1991 for crimes of a similar nature, he was sentenced to imprisonment for an indefinite duration ( forvaring ), which he has been serving in Herstedvester prison since 31 January 1997. Several times, in vain, the applicant has requested release, or in the alternative, that his sentence be altered to a more lenient one. The most recent decision in this respect was taken by the City Court ( Retten i Glostrup ) on 13 October 2014, upheld on appeal by the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( Østre Landsret ) on 28 January 2015. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 6 July 2015. The two former instances based their decision, notably, on a statement of 3 February 2014 by P., a psychiatrist at Herstedvester prison, assessing that there was a significant risk of reoffending unless the applicant were to receive medical treatment to reduce his libido and sexual functions (known as chemical castration), which, for various reasons, he refused. Accordingly, she proposed that the sentence be maintained. P. had made a similar assessment on 31 October 2011, in connection with a previous review of the sentence. During the proceedings, relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant had maintained that the assessment of his dangerousness and need for treatment should be made by an external psychiatrist. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the Danish courts’ decision to maintain the applicant’s sentence, which became final on 6 July 2015, in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, notably having regard to the fact that the assessment of his dangerousness and need for treatment was made by a psychiatrist at the institution where he was serving his sentence and not, as he had requested, by an external expert (see, for example, Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland , no.   8300/06, 18 February 2014)?