CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2023

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10297/23 Abdeelhadi Abbas MAKKI against Denmark lodged on 21 February 2023 communicated on 16 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s confinement from 5 June 2016 at 9.30 a.m. to 16 June 2016 at 8.18 p.m. to a restraint bed in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant appealed against the confinement to the Psychiatric Patients’ Complaints Board, which found for him. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant brought compensation proceedings before the courts. By a final judgment of 26 October 2022 the Supreme Court found the confinement lawful and rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the confinement of the applicant to a restraint bed from 5 June 2016 at 9.30 a.m. to 16 June 2016 at 8.18 p.m. in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Aggerholm v. Denmark , no.   45439/18, 15   September 2020)?