Danish court in Holstebro rules that the wrongful conviction of Henning Kjeldsen breached human rights and awards compensation
A court in Holstebro has ruled that Denmark violated the European Convention on Human Rights in the case against fishing tycoon Henning Kjeldsen and six other fishermen, who were convicted in a lower court and later acquitted on appeal.
The judgment, delivered on 28 March 2025, concluded that their original conviction breached Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits retrospective punishment and convictions without legal basis. The case revolved around alleged violations of Danish fisheries laws, with the accused initially found guilty before being fully acquitted in the High Court.
Kjeldsen, owner of Gitte Henning Pelagic A/S, and his co-defendants subsequently sued the Danish state for damages. The prosecutor’s office opposed compensation, claiming that since the High Court had acquitted the defendants, there was no wrongdoing. The court disagreed
The Outcome of the Case
The Holstebro Court found that, while the prosecution itself had not acted negligently during the investigation or trial preparation, the conviction in the lower court was a violation of Article 7 of the ECHR. As such, the state was found liable for damages.
The court granted the following:
- Henning Kjeldsen was awarded DKK 150,000 (€20,100 / £17,200) for violation of his fundamental rights.
- His company, Gitte Henning Pelagic A/S, was awarded DKK 7,000,000 (€939,000 / £801,000), to cover the costs of legal defence paid on behalf of multiple defendants. The claim had originally stood at DKK 44,998,150 ( €6 million / £5.15 million) but was substantially reduced by the court due to a lack of proof the full amount was necessary and reasonable under Danish legal fee guidelines.
- Six other fishermen were awarded between DKK 30,000 and DKK 150,000 each (€4,000–€20,100 / £3,400–£17,200), based on the severity of rights violations and their individual roles in the original case.
The court rejected additional claims for damages relating to lost income, seizure of property, loss of goodwill, and further tort claims, citing insufficient evidence or lack of legal basis.
Court Release
The case in brief
The claimants had been acquitted in the criminal case in the High Court, as the acts they were charged with were not punishable. In support of their claim for compensation pursuant to Section 1018 h of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the claimants argued that the prosecution had acted negligently in the handling of the case by failing to conduct the required independent and thorough investigations of the legal basis, which were required in the circumstances, and that the prosecution’s indictment and the conduct of the criminal case in two instances without legal basis also involved a violation of ECHR Article 7.
The claimants had claimed compensation for expenses for legal and expert assistance, for operating losses, accommodation expenses, compensation for the seizures that had occurred in the case, for loss of goodwill and compensation for tort.
The prosecution claimed acquittal in the case and in support of this argued that there had been no conduct that gave rise to liability in the case and that there was no violation of ECHR Article 7 when there was a final acquittal in the high court.
The outcome of the case
The court found it not proven that the prosecution had acted in a manner that gave rise to liability in the actual handling of the case, but that the conviction in the district court was a violation of ECHR Article 7, which did give rise to liability for the prosecution. The court therefore found that the claimants were entitled to compensation and redress for tort under the general rules of Danish law, cf. Section 1018 h of the Administration of Justice Act in conjunction with Denmark’s international obligations under ECHR Article 13, cf. Article 7.
The court found that the company, which had provisionally paid the costs of the chosen defence counsel for a number of those acquitted, was entitled to reimbursement of reasonable and necessary costs of defence counsel, and that the amount should be determined on the basis of the indicative rates for fees for defence counsel in criminal cases. Since the claim for coverage of defence counsel costs of DKK 44,998,150 was undisputedly significantly above this rate, and since it had not been proven that the costs had been necessary, the court estimated the amount at DKK 7,000,000 based on the information in the case.
The court also set compensation for damages to the seven men at DKK 30,000 or DKK 150,000.
The court acquitted the prosecution of the other claims for damages.
Decision date
The judgment was handed down by the Court in Holstebro on March 28, 2025.
Source
