CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1349/21 Silas DAM against Denmark lodged on 17 December 2020 communicated on 9 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s confinement on 12   December 2018 and 11 January 2019 to a restraint bed for, respectively, 25   hours and 35 minutes and 3 hours and 30 minutes, while he was serving a sentence of committal to a psychiatric hospital. The applicant appealed against the confinement to the Psychiatric Patients’ Complaints Board ( det Psykiatriske Patientklagenævn ), which found both measures lawful. However, it did not approve of the duration of the confinement that took place on 11 January 2019. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the City Court ( Retten i Glostrup ) which, on 6 September 2014, found against him. On appeal, by judgment of 21   February 2020, the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( Østre Landsret ) approved the measures. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ( Højesteret ) was refused on 3 July 2020. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the confinement of the applicant to a restraint bed on 12   December 2018 for 25 hours and 35 minutes in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, inter, alia , Aggerholm v. Denmark , no. 45439/18, 15   September 2020)?   2.     Was the confinement of the applicant to a restraint bed on 11 January 2019 for 3 hours and 30 minutes in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?