CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 août 2024

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary April 2026 Makki v. Denmark (relinquishment) - 24292/24   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Seclusion of the applicants in their locked patient rooms in psychiatric hospitals due to their dangerousness: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Seclusion of the applicants in their locked patient rooms in psychiatric hospitals due to their dangerousness: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Isolement des requérants dans une chambre fermée à clé d’un hôpital psychiatrique en raison de leur dangerosité   : relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber [This summary also covers the relinquishment in the case of Ahmad v.   Denmark , 5712/24] The applicants due to their dangerousness were committed to the High-Security Psychiatric Unit where extraordinarily dangerous patients are treated under the Mental Health Act. Mr Ahmad suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Following his conviction for crimes of a violent nature, including violence and threats of violence against staff at a psychiatric hospital, an order was made that he be placed in the High-Security Psychiatric Unit. However, as there was no room available in that unit he was placed at the Department of Forensic Psychiatry. He was confined to his patient room there for over eight months by a heavy, 80   cm high, bookcase being placed in front of the door, with an alarm, in case he removed the bookcase. He unsuccessfully challenged this measure. The High Court found that his confinement had been lawful. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the seclusion did not amount to separate deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention and although the measure had lacked a legal basis under the Mental Health Act, Articles   3 and   8 of the Convention were not applicable. Mr Makki suffers from schizophrenia and a mild intellectual disability. After violently assaulting a nurse at a psychiatric hospital he was placed at the High-Security Psychiatric Unit where he was secluded in his room for more than three years and seven months. He brought compensation proceedings before the domestic courts. His seclusion was found to be lawful, except for a period of twenty-three days for which he was granted compensation. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. Relying on Articles   3, 5 and   8 of the Convention the applicants complain about their seclusion in their locked patient rooms in the psychiatric hospitals. On 28   April 2026 a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .