The Supreme Court will review the extended delays in the Eastern High Court, focusing on two specific criminal cases where waiting times exceed two years. The decision comes after the Appeals Permission Board granted lawyer Anders Schønnemann Olesen permission to bring the issue before the highest court.

Olesen argues that these delays violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a trial within a reasonable time. He asserts that the Supreme Court must recognize the High Court’s scheduling as unreasonable and unacceptable. He also questions the legal certainty when the High Court’s capacity issues lead to cases being processed more than two years after the district court’s ruling.

One of the cases involves a Serbian national sentenced to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking in December 2024. Despite the appeal, the High Court’s hearing is not scheduled until April-June 2027. The other case concerns a murder in Husum, where the Copenhagen City Court issued its judgment in November 2024. The appeals in this case will not be heard until March-April 2027.

Olesen emphasizes that the right to a timely trial applies to everyone, regardless of their popularity. He points out that the European Convention on Human Rights is integrated into Danish law. He also notes his limited ability to influence parliament, which is ultimately responsible for the justice system’s long waiting times.

The Eastern High Court’s delays have received previous attention. President Carsten Kristen Vollmer has acknowledged the situation as unsatisfactory. The president of the court stated in the spring that the acceptable waiting times at the courts is ultimately a legal policy question.

Preben Bang Henriksen, legal spokesman for the Liberal Party, has stated that developments would be followed at Christiansborg. He was responding to the fact that cases that will only last a single day and concern a possible fine, must wait two years or more before the High Court can address them.

The Supreme Court has previously criticized the High Court’s handling of cases, reminding them of their duty to expedite cases with necessary speed. This earlier instance involved a rape case from Funen.