In a ruling in June, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no intervention in the right to respect for private life in the case Dian v. Denmark. This case concerned a Romanian man who had been sentenced to 20 days of unconditional imprisonment for begging in a non-aggressive way on a pedestrian street in Copenhagen. Last year, ENNHRI submitted a third-party intervention in this case.

This is the second time that the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has issued a ruling in a case regarding public begging. In its judgment in the case Lăcătuş v. Switzerland, the Court found that a five-day imprisonment imposed on a Roma woman for begging in Geneva was a violation of the right to respect for private life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)).

In its third-party intervention in Dian v. Denmark, ENNHRI invited the Court to reaffirm its position taken in Lăcătuş v. Switzerland that the right to beg can only be restricted in exceptional circumstances. ENNHRI stated that any general ban on begging falls outside any acceptable margin of appreciation. Furthermore, ENNHRI submitted that there was a need for further legal guidance to ensure that regulations on public begging comply with the Convention.

What did the Court rule in Dian v. Denmark?

The Court decided to distinguish the case from Lăcătuş v. Switzerland in concluding that Article 8 of the Convention was not applicable to the facts of the case of Dian v. Denmark. The Court did so for three reasons.

Firstly, the Court assessed that the Romanian man had the burden of proving that he was vulnerable to such a degree that it was necessary for him to beg. He had not lifted this burden of proof as there were several unresolved questions about his economic and social situation.

Secondly, the Court noted that in Denmark, public assistance is available to EU citizens in a financial emergency, as they can apply for return assistance. The Court was not convinced under these circumstances that the Romanian man lacked sufficient means of subsistence or that begging was his only option to ensure his survival. It also did not accept that through the act of begging, he adopted a particular way of life with the aim of rising above an inhumane and precarious situation, and thus protecting his human dignity.

Thirdly, the Court found that the Danish rules criminalising begging in public did not amount to a blanket ban on begging as opposed to the situation in Lăcătuş v. Switzerland. This was because in Denmark a person could only be convicted of begging if it took place in a personal manner causing nuisance to the public and the person had been warned beforehand.

Full information on the case and context

Read the Court’s full decision and ENNHRI’s third-party intervention in Dian v. Denmark.

Learn more about ENNHRI’s work on democracy and the rule of law and economic and social rights.