I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in BJERG v. DENMARK.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2024-11-05
  • Communication date: 2021-05-25
  • Application number(s): 11227/21
  • Country:   DNK
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-4
  • Conclusion:
    No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
  • Result: No violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.693742
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 14 June 2021 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In the meantime, on 9 January 2020, the applicant’s sentence had been revoked Relying on Article 5(4) of the Convention the applicant complained that he did not have a judicial review of the lawfulness of the three readmission decisions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

Judgment