27 apr 2021
Højesteret
Compensation under section 26 of the Liability ...
No basis for compensation under section 26(1) of the Liability for Damages Act or the principle therein for municipal authorities’ wrongful decision
Case no. BS-19523/2020-HJR
Judgment delivered on 22 April 2021
A
vs.
Municipality of X
The case concerned the issue of whether the municipal authorities were liable for compensation under section 26(1) of the Danish Liability for Damages Act or the principle therein for neglecting to follow the National Social Appeals Board’s decision holding that A, who is autistic, mentally retarded and visually impaired, was entitled to be escorted by an aide at certain swimming competitions.
A claimed that the authorities should be ordered to pay compensation for injury to A’s feelings because they had infringed A’s right to protection of property under Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Supreme Court found that this was an unlawful act as the municipal authorities had failed to follow the National Social Appeals Board’s decision that they should grant A a certain number of hours for an aide under section 85 of the Danish Act on Social Services.
Regardless of the fact that the National Social Appeals Board had established that A required an aide to develop her skills, the Supreme Court considered that there was no basis for assuming that the infringement was likely to affect A’s self-esteem and sense of honour and, thus, injure her feelings according to the interpretation given to this concept in section 26(1) of the Liability for Damages Act.
With regard to Article 1 of the first protocol, the Supreme Court stated that no judgments from the European Court of Human Rights had emerged on the subject of whether and, if so, under which circumstances the concept of property in Article 1 would cover a situation as the one in this case. Regardless of whether this situation is covered by Article 1, the Supreme Court held that, based on the specific circumstances of this case, A would not be entitled to compensation for the municipal authorities’ failure to follow the National Social Appeals Board’s decision.
The High Court had reached the same conclusion.