CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 25 March 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45439/18 Niels Lund AGGERHOLM against Denmark lodged on 13 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2005 the applicant was convicted of various offences under the Penal Code and sentenced to committal to a psychiatric hospital. In 2013, on 3 January and 8 February, he was confined to a restraint bed for respectively 44 hours, and 22 hours and 55 minutes. The applicant appealed against the confinement to the Psychiatric Patients’ Complaints Board ( det Psykiatriske Patientklagenævn ), which on 21   March 2013 found both measures unlawful. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the City Court ( Retten i Roskilde ), which on 24 March 2013 found against him. The applicant appealed against the judgment, but only in respect of the confinement which took place on 8   February 2013. By judgment of 9   November 2017 the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( Østre landsret ) approved that measure, finding that there were no reasons to disregard the consultant psychiatrist’s assessment at the time, that it had been necessary to confine the applicant to a restraint bed in order to avoid imminent danger to others and that, during his confinement, the staff had assessed with sufficient frequency whether the conditions for the confinement were still present. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ( Højesteret ) was refused on 15 March 2018. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the confinement of the applicant to a restraint bed on 8 February 2013 for 22 hours and 55 minutes in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?