HANSEN v NORWAY - 48852/17 (Inadmissibility decision : conditions of detention : Fifth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 531 (21 June 2018)

HANSEN v NORWAY - 48852/17 (Inadmissibility decision : conditions of detention : Fifth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 531 (21 June 2018)

The Court found that the applicant's detention conditions, including isolation and security measures, were justified by the high risk of violence and the need to protect both the applicant and others. Extensive compensatory measures were implemented, and there was no evidence of harm due to isolation. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 531
Parties
Applicant: Fjotolf Hansen; Respondent: Norwegian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Inadmissibility Decision
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible; no violation found.
Legal Topics
Conditions of Detention, Preventive Detention, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Isolation, Security Measures
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Prison Law Conditions of Detention Preventive Detention Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Isolation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fjotolf Hansen

Applicant

Norwegian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Inadmissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions of the applicant's detention violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's detention conditions, including isolation and security measures, were justified by the high risk of violence and the need to protect both the applicant and others. Extensive compensatory measures were implemented, and there was no evidence of harm due to isolation. The authorities had not acted with the intention to break down the applicant physically or mentally. The measures were proportionate and did not breach Article 3 or Article 8 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible; no violation found.