ECHR judgment of July 9, 2019 in the case of Tim Henrik Bruun Hansen v. Denmark (application No. 51072/15).
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated by Denmark.
The case has successfully examined the application about the extension of the applicant's detention, which, according to the applicant, was not sufficiently related to the original purpose of his detention. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Circumstances of the case
Following previous similar convictions, the applicant was convicted in 1996 of a serious crime of sexual violence against a minor and sentenced to “detention for security purposes” for an indefinite period. The applicant’s treatment and, therefore, his chances of rehabilitating his release were at a standstill in terms of a trusting relationship with the staff of the institution, since the applicant refused the chemical castration, which was the reason for his release, and then consultative assistance. In 2015, the court extended his detention. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention because his continued deprivation of liberty was not sufficiently related to the original purpose of his detention.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
Regarding compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The main issue to be resolved was whether there was a sufficient causal connection, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, between the applicant’s criminal conviction in 1996 and his continued imprisonment, which was extended in 2015.
Extending the period of deprivation of liberty, the court took into account a number of evidence and concluded that the applicant’s detention was still necessary in order to prevent the immediate risk of recidivism of serious crimes against sexual integrity, for which the applicant was convicted three times from 1989 to 1996 year. However, the court rejected the applicant’s request for an independent expert opinion, despite the fact that by that time the applicant had already been in custody for almost 19 years and the last expert report was dated 2007.
It appeared that cooperation in order to significantly reduce the degree of danger of the applicant between him and the medical staff of the institution in which he was detained was not possible. Thus, the situation was indeed a dead end. In such a case, it was especially important to find out the opinion of an expert not affiliated with the institution in order to receive new proposals regarding the necessary treatment. As a result of the fact that the country's court did not even try to obtain a new opinion from an independent medical expert regarding the need to continue the applicant's detention in custody, he did not properly establish the relevant facts. Consequently, the decision to extend the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was not based on an assessment that was reasonable in terms of the objectives pursued by the applicant’s conviction in 1996.
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
In application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court held that finding a violation of the Convention would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.