CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 25 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15136/20 Svend LINGS against Denmark lodged on 18 March 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of 23   September 2019, the applicant, a retired physician, and member of an association in favour of euthanasia, was convicted of two counts of assisted suicide, and one count of attempt to assist suicide, under Article 240 of the Danish Penal Code, which reads “a ny person who assists another person in committing suicide shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three years. He was sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment, suspended. Maintaining that he had merely provided general advice about suicide, the applicant complains that his conviction was in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the judgment of the Supreme Court of 23 September 2019 amount to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? (see, inter alia , Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland , 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246 ‑ A)