In the present case, the High Court had proceeded on the assumption that the applicant’s complaint had been within the scope of Article 8 and that his conviction and sentence had amounted to an interference with his right to respect for private life. Nevertheless, it then concluded that, in the circumstances, the applicant had not been in a clearly vulnerable situation where begging had been effectively his only option to ensure his own survival.
The Court firstly analysed the applicant’s economic and social situation. The applicant, who was 61 years old, illiterate and unemployed, had been able to travel multiple times between Romania and Denmark and had availed himself of the possibility of making a living in Denmark, an economically well-developed country, by selling a newspaper, collecting bottles and begging. Apart from those sources of income, he had been able to regularly send money to his family in Romania where he also had a house. He had been a cocaine and cannabis user for years and on the day of the offence of which he had been convicted, had been found to be in possession of cash amounting to approximately EUR 135. In addition, as an EU citizen, he had the right to enter and reside in Denmark for up to three months and, in case of financial emergency, could have applied for “return assistance”.
The Court was thus not convinced that the applicant had lacked sufficient means of subsistence, or that begging had been his only option to ensure his own survival, or that by the act of begging, he had adopted a particular way of life with the aim of rising above an inhumane and precarious situation, and thus of protecting his human dignity. The act of begging had been a means, or at least an additional means, of income for the applicant.
Secondly, the Court noted that, unlike in Lacatus, the present case did not concern a blanket ban on begging. Under Danish law, begging was allowed under certain conditions; 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 or if it took place in a pedestrian street, at stations, in or outside supermarkets or on public transport. There was no indication that the applicant had been regularly convicted of begging or that he was prevented from begging in Denmark at all. Thus, he could continue to beg in Copenhagen, and elsewhere in Denmark, outside the designated areas, provided that it did not take place in a personal manner causing nuisance to the public.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that Article 8 was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
(See also Lacatus v. Switzerland, Application 14065/15, 19 January 2021, Legal Summary)
