COUNCIL OF EUROPE  
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS  

2020/63  

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY of Application No. 2020/63 by J -O g against Denmark  

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16th February 1965, under the presidency of Mr. S. PETREN and the following members being present:  
MM. C. Th. EUSTATHIADES, J. ©, BEAUFORT, JANSSEN-PEVTSCHIN, SORENSEN, ERMACORA, CASTBERG, E. S. FAWCETT, MAGUIRE, WELTER, BALTA, Mrs. MM. HYQUDTTAAEAR, Mr. A. B. McNULTY, Secretary to the Commission  

Having regard to the Application lodged on 9th October 1963 by J -O g against Denmark and registered on 21st October 1963 under file No. 2020/63;  
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 45, paragraph (1), of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;  
Having deliberated,  

THE FACTS  

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1941 and at present detained at the State Hospital at Glostrup. The Applicant states that, on 7th June 1963, he was transferred to the above hospital for psychiatric treatment to which he had consented. On 13th June 1963, however, he requested his discharge on the ground that he was mentally normal but his request was rejected by the Chief Psychiatrist at the hospital. On 3rd July 1963, the Ministry of Justice upheld this decision. The Applicant subsequently appealed to the Copenhagen County Court (nordre Birk) which, having heard the Medico-Legal Council, rejected his appeal on 4th September 1963. On 9th October 1963, the Eastern Court of Appeal (Østre Landsret) upheld this decision. His renewed appeal for release was rejected by the same two Courts on 29th April and 30th June 1964 respectively. It appears that the Applicant is now permitted to stay at home on condition that he follows necessary psychiatric treatment during the daytime at the above hospital.  

Whereas the Applicant contests that he is subjected to psychiatric treatment and alleges violations of Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, he claims his discharge from the above hospital.  

THE LAW  

Whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Articles 3 and 9 invoked by the Applicant; whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to Article 5, paragraph (1) (e) which authorises the detention of persons found by national authorities to be "of unsound mind";  
Whereas there is no evidence in the file to suggest that the detention of the Applicant was not "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention; whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention.  

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE  

Secretary to the Commission  
President of the Commission  
(A. B. McNulty) (S. Petren)