FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF POULSEN v. DENMARK
(Application no. 34232/24)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 May 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Poulsen v. Denmark,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, President,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 34232/24) against the Kingdom of Denmark lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 November 2024 by a Danish national, Ms Sophie Amalie Baccouche Lyngkjaer Poulsen (“the applicant”), who was born in 1990 and lives in Aarhus, and was represented by Mr Tobias Stadarfeld Jensen, a lawyer practising in Aarhus;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Danish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Vibeke Pasternak Jørgensen, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and their co-Agent, Ms Nina Holst-Christensen, of the Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention that she was subjected to violence and confined to a restraint bed on 31 August 2023 when she commenced serving a prison sentence, and that the investigation in this respect was ineffective.
2. On 31 August 2023, when the applicant commenced serving a prison sentence, she adamantly opposed sharing a cell with any inmate. A dispute arose, subsequent to which she was placed in a safety cell and confined to a restraint bed from 12.45 a.m. on 31 August until 9.57 a.m. on 1 September 2023.
3. On 19 February 2024 the applicant reported the incident described above to the police and claimed that she had been subjected to violence and humiliating treatment by prison officers. By a decision of 12 July 2024, after interviewing the applicant and a prison officer, the regional prosecutor dismissed her complaint, finding no basis for initiating criminal proceedings.
4. On 4 December 2024, subsequent to the communication of the present case, the applicant requested compensation from the Department of Prisons and Probation (“the Department”) for, notably, the confinement to the restraint bed.
5. On 10 April 2025 the Department found, among other things, that the initial confinement of the applicant to the restraint bed had been justified but that the continued confinement from 7.45 p.m. on 31 August until 9.57 a.m. on 1 September 2023, that is, for approximately 14 hours, had been unjustified and in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In decisions of 2 May and 26 August 2025, the applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of 20,000 Danish kroner (DKK – equivalent to approximately 2,700 euros (EUR)), which also covered two incidents not related to the present case.
6. The Government transferred the compensation awarded to the applicant to the Danish Debt Collection Agency, to set off public debt that the applicant had accumulated.
7. In the meantime, on 24 February 2025 the regional prosecutor decided ex officio to reopen the criminal investigation. On the basis of, inter alia, interviews of 14 prison officers, on 5 September 2025 the regional prosecutor decided to again discontinue the investigation, finding that further investigation could not lead to anyone being charged with unlawful deprivation of liberty, abuse of their position or failure to observe their duties.
8. In her application to the Court, the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been subjected to violence by prison officers and confined to a restraint bed and that the ensuing investigation had failed to comply with the procedural aspect of the same Article.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF the substantive aspect of ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION9. The Court points out that the scope of the case does not extend beyond the complaints as formulated by the applicant (see paragraph 8 above, and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018). Accordingly, it will not deal with the complaints added in the applicant’s observations before the Court to the effect that on the same occasion she had been denied a medical examination and had been forced to clean up her own bodily fluids.
10. In respect of the applicant’s complaint of being subjected, quite apart from her confinement to a restraint bed, to violence, the applicant has failed to submit any arguments which could lead the Court to depart from the conclusion reached by the regional prosecutor on 5 September 2025 (see paragraph 7 above).
11. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
12. In respect of the complaint concerning the applicant’s confinement to a restraint bed, the general principles have been summarised in Aggerholm v. Denmark (no. 45439/18, §§ 79-85, 15 September 2020).
13. The Government have acknowledged that there was a violation as regards the 14‑hour period of restraint, in line with the decision of 10 April 2025 delivered by the Department (see paragraph 5 above). They submitted that, in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the amount which had been awarded in compensation at the national level had been adequate and had been significantly higher than the usual compensation awarded in such cases in Denmark and that the applicant had therefore lost her victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
14. The Court finds no reason to question the finding by the domestic authorities that the continuous confinement of the applicant to a restraint bed for approximately 14 hours was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
15. Whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation depends on the adequacy and sufficiency of the redress afforded (see, among other authorities, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 182, ECHR 2006‑V).
16. In the present case, the applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of approximately EUR 2,700, which also covered incidents not related to this case. The sum is thus significantly lower than that which the Court would award in compensation for non-pecuniary damage in similar cases (see, notably, Aggerholm, cited above, § 119).
17. Moreover, the Government used the compensation awarded to the applicant to offset public debt that she had accumulated (see paragraph 6 above), a practice which cannot be regarded compliant with the Court’s case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 133, ECHR 1999-V).
18. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that appropriate redress has been afforded in the present case to remove the applicant’s victim status as regards the complaint under this head (see, for example, Scordino, cited above, §§ 268-69).
19. It follows that the applicant’s complaint about her continuous confinement to a restraint bed for 14 hours must be declared admissible and that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF the Procedural aspect of ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION20. The applicant complained that both the initial and reopened investigation had been ineffective.
21. The general principles concerning the procedural obligation implied by Article 3 have been summarised in, among other authorities, El-Asmar v. Denmark (no. 27753/19, § 49, 3 October 2023).
22. On the available material, and in the absence of any argument by the applicant pointing to a particular shortcoming of the investigation, there is no indication that the investigation, once reopened, was not effective or that it failed to comply with the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
23. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION24. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage relating to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
25. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive.
26. Making its assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41 of the Convention and taking note of the domestic award already made that also covered incidents not related to the present case (see paragraph 5 above), the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
27. The applicant also claimed costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court in the amount of 159,787.50 Danish kroner (DKK – equivalent to approximately EUR 21,500), corresponding to legal fees covering a total of 63.5 hours of work carried out by her representative.
28. The Government found the amount excessive and added that the applicant could apply for legal aid under the Danish Legal Aid Act and potentially receive pay up to DKK 40,000 (equivalent to approximately EUR 5,400).
29. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant will be granted legal aid under the Danish Legal Aid Act. The Court therefore finds it necessary to assess and decide on the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses (see, for instance, Aggerholm, cited above, § 126).
30. Having regard to the general principles restated in Tsaava and Others v. Georgia ([GC], nos. 13186/20 and 4 others, § 497, 11 December 2025), the documents in its possession and awards made in comparable cases against Denmark (see, notably, Kalkan v. Denmark, no. 51781/22, § 138, 27 May 2025; El-Asmar, cited above, § 88; Aggerholm, cited above, § 127; and Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark, no. 25650/22, § 81, 15 October 2024), the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 10,000 to cover the costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the complaint under Article 3 about the applicant’s continuous confinement to a restraint bed for approximately 14 hours admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb;Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Simeon Petrovski Ana Maria Guerra Martins
Deputy Registrar President