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.

Outcome for Article 3: violation