CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 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 } .s760DC008 { font-family:Arial; color:#172535 } .s90528624 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#172535 } .sCE8DC2A7 { font-family:Arial; color:#212f49 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s2791859E { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#212f49 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11227/21 Rasmus Ardian BJERG against Denmark lodged on 12 February 2021 communicated on 25 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2013 the applicant was convicted of making threats and witness tampering. He was sentenced to treatment in a psychiatric ward, with supervision by the Department of Prisons and Probation in collaboration with the ward during discharge, so that the Department of Prisons and Probation, together with the consultant psychiatrist, could decide whether to readmit the applicant to the psychiatric ward. By virtue of article 72(2) of the Penal Code the applicant could request that the said sentence be amended or revoked every 6 months (after a final decision in this respect). In accordance with the terms set out in the treatment sentence, the applicant was readmitted to the psychiatric ward, inter alia , from 12 to 15   June 2018, from 21 to 24 September 2018 and from 26 September to 3   October 2018. The applicant brought these three readmission decisions before the courts, requesting a judicial review under article 72(2) of the Penal Code. By a final decision of 12 August 2020, the Supreme Court found against the applicant. It held that article 72(2) of the Penal Code did not apply to a situation such as the present where the three specific decisions to readmit were made with reference to the treatment sentence, and that there was no basis for finding that this outcome was in contravention of Article 5(4) of the Convention. In the meantime, on 9 January 2020, the applicant’s sentence had been revoked Relying on Article 5(4) of the Convention the applicant complained that he did not have a judicial review of the lawfulness of the three readmission decisions mentioned above QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court’s decision of 12 August 2020 in breach of Article 5(4) of the Convention (see, inter alia , mutatis mutandis , X v. the United Kingdom , 5 November 1981, § 58, Series A no. 46 and Herz v.   Germany , no. 44672/98, § 64, 12 June 2003) ?