Kenneth Glad
A psychiatric case has prompted a firm rebuke from Europe’s human rights court, drawing attention to how long coercive measures can be maintained before they violate fundamental protections. Beyond the individual case, the ruling is likely to trigger closer scrutiny of how restraint is monitored and reviewed in practice.
The European Court of Human Rights found that Denmark had crossed the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the convention.
Central to the judgment was not the initial decision to restrain the patient, but how long it continued without sufficient justification. The man was awarded €20,000 in damages.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights said, according to national broadcaster DR, that the case marks the longest restraint period the court has examined to date.
Timeline challenged
The events began in June 2016, when a man in his early 20s with schizophrenia was admitted involuntarily. Shortly after arrival, he assaulted a nurse with a fork.
He was restrained the same day. What followed became the focus of the legal dispute: More than 11 days strapped to a bed, interrupted only by 30-minute supervised breaks.
A Danish psychiatric complaints board later concluded that the legal basis for the restraint expired on June 5. The remaining period, it found, could not be justified.
Before the Strasbourg court, the man argued that authorities failed to reassess the necessity of the measure and allowed it to continue by default rather than by ongoing evaluation.
Wider impact
DR has reported that thousands of restraint cases still occur annually in Denmark, though most are significantly shorter.
The ruling adds to a pattern identified in earlier cases, where delayed reassessment has been a recurring issue, including a 23-hour restraint criticised by the same court and a nine-month case struck down by Denmark’s Supreme Court.
The individual involved is also awaiting a separate ruling over his long-term isolation in a high-security psychiatric facility.
Taken together, the judgment tightens expectations: authorities must actively and repeatedly justify restraint, not simply extend it. That distinction could shape how psychiatric oversight is enforced going forward.
Source: DR
