Affirmation of the High Court’s scheduling of criminal case

Case no. 70/2025

Order made on 12 February 2026

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T1 and
T2

On 8 November 2024, the Copenhagen City Court sentenced T1 to life imprisonment for, among other things, aiding in several attempted murders, illegal possession of firearms and extensive drug trafficking. T2 was sentenced to imprisonment for 13 years and 4 months for, among other things, aiding in attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms. During the proceedings, T1 had been detained from 13 January 2023 and T2 from 15 November 2023. T1 and T2 appealed their sentences immediately, claiming acquittal, or, in the alternative, mitigation. 

Initially, the High Court scheduled the main hearing for August-October 2027, but by decision of 15 April 2025 changed this to 12 court days in March-April 2027, with the judgment expected to be delivered on 12 April 2027. In addition, the High Court ordered that the defendants were to be held in pre-trial detention pending judgment in the appeal proceedings.

T1 and T2 brought the High Court’s scheduling decision before the Supreme Court, claiming, among other things, that it infringed their right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The Supreme Court stated, among other things, that, pursuant to section 843a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, a court of law must advance the proceedings as fast as required and possible considering the nature of the case to ensure that the proceedings may be completed within a reasonable time. The main hearing must be conducted as fast as possible if the defendant has been remanded in custody.

The Supreme Court went on to state that it had to be assumed that the High Court by its decision of 15 April 2025 to bring the hearing forward had scheduled the case so that it could be heard as soon as practically possible given the circumstances at the time of scheduling. The Court’s scheduling decision was a procedural decision that could be changed. Accordingly, as it had already done once in this case, the Court could decide to bring the main hearing further forward if the opportunity arose. 

In the present case, where the main hearing was scheduled far in the future, and where the defendants were in pre-trial detention pending judgment in the appeal proceedings, the High Court should continuously assess whether it would be possible to bring forward the main hearing.

There were no grounds to decide at this stage whether appeal hearings in March and April 2027 as scheduled would infringe their right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and what the consequences of this would be. This was to be decided in connection with the main hearing in the appeal proceedings.

The Supreme Court thus affirmed the High Court’s decision of 15 April 2025 on the scheduling of the main hearing in the appeal proceedings.