Time-barred claim for compensation for alleged assaults in Iraq

Case no. BS-26215/2018-HJR
Judgment delivered on 10 February 2022

A
vs.
The Ministry of Defence

The case concerned the issue of whether A was entitled to compensation for the alleged assaults committed when he was detained by the Danish forces in Iraq from 9 March 2004 at 11.09 pm to 10 March 2004 at 12.35 pm, and whether the Danish Ministry of Defence had a duty to investigate the alleged assaults further.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that A’s claim for compensation became time-barred on 10 March 2009, i.e. before the proceedings were instituted on 4 May 2016.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 14 April 2021 (UfR 2021.3257), the Supreme Court stated that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights did not give grounds to assume that it is in itself in contravention of Article 3, 6 or 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights to rely on national rules on limitation of claims for compensation brought in connection with alleged assaults involving torture or other treatment covered by Article 3 of the Convention. Instead, compliance with the Convention must be considered based on a concrete assessment of whether it would be proportionate to regard the claim as being time-barred under national limitation rules.

In 2004, A gave a statement in Iraq as part of an investigation by the Military Prosecution Service. In that connection, he described a number of alleged assaults that were later investigated during the criminal proceedings. These proceedings were concluded with the Eastern High Court’s dismissal of the action on 6 July 2006. The Supreme Court did not consider that any information had been brought to light in the present case that gave rise to another conclusion that that reached by the High Court in the criminal proceedings. It had thus not been demonstrated that A during his detention had been subjected to treatment of such a nature or degree that it amounted to torture or other treatment in contravention of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the writ of 4 May 2016, A described a number of alleged assaults that he had not mentioned before. On certain key points, these descriptions had been contradicted by the other evidence produced in the case, and the Supreme Court considered them to be wholly untrustworthy.

Against this background, the Supreme Court agreed that holding that the claim for compensation was time-barred did not infringe A’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court also agreed that the Ministry of Defence was not obliged to make further investigations of the alleged assaults.

The Supreme Court thus reached the same conclusion as the High Court.