Key facts of the case:
T was convicted of aggravated violence pursuant to Section 245 (1) in the Danish Criminal Code, cf. Section 247 (1). At the time of the offence, T was 16 years old and had been in Denmark since he was 8 years old. During the criminal proceedings, T was 17 years old.
The Prosecutor has called for expulsion based on, inter alia, the seriousness of the crime. The question before the courts was whether expulsion was possible pursuant to the Danish Act on Foreigners. As the father of T is a citizen of the Union, expulsion was only possible if it was accordance with the EU principles regarding limitations on the right to free movement, cf. Section 26 b in the Danish Act on Foreigners. The court therefore had to examine whether expulsion would be in violation of the EU Directive on Freedom of Movement and Residence – and the rights ensured in inter alia the Charter.
Key legal question:
The case concerned the sentencing and the question of expulsion pursuant to national and EU legislation.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court found that expulsion was not a disproportionate interference in violation of art. 27 (2) and 28 (1) in the EU Directive on Freedom of movement and residence and art. 8 in the European Convention on Human Rights and art. 7 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Considering the nature and the seriousness of the present and previous crime committed by T, the Supreme Court found, after an overall assessment, that the overriding considerations calling for an expulsion, including the risk of him committing serious bodily harm, outweighed considerations calling for no expulsion.
“An assessment of the proportionality of the interference with the right to free movement is required, cf. art. 27 (2) and art. 28 (1) in the EU Directive on Freedom of Movement and Residence. The proportionality assessment must include consideration to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights pertaining to art. 8 in the European Convention of Human Rights, cf. article 7 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
“The Supreme Court thus upholds the finding that expulsion is not a disproportionate interference in violation of art. 27 (2) and art. 28 (1) of the EU Directive on Freedom of Movement and Residence together with art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and art. 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that a permanent expulsion is not in violation with the provisions mentioned. The Supreme Court notes, that the part of his family, who live in Denmark, will be able to maintain contact with him through visits to Pakistan and by contact through telephone and internet.”
”Der skal herefter foretages en proportionalitetsvurdering, jf. opholdsdirektivets artikel 27, stk. 2, 1. led, og artikel 28, stk. 1. Ved denne vurdering skal der bl.a. tages hensyn til Menneskerettighedsdomstolens praksis vedrørende Menneskerettighedskonventionens artikel 8 om respekt for privat- og familieliv, jf. herved artikel 7 i Den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.”
”Højesteret tiltræder herefter, at udvisning ikke er et uproportionalt indgreb i strid med opholdsdirektivets artikel 27, stk. 2, 1. led, og artikel 28, stk. 1, samt Menneskerettighedskonventionens artikel 8 og EU-Charterets artikel 7. Højesteret finder endvidere, at det ikke er i strid med de nævnte bestemmelser, at udvisningen sker med indrejseforbud for bestandig. Højesteret bemærker, at den del af hans familie, der bor i Danmark, vil have mulighed for at opretholde kontakten med ham ved besøg i Pakistan og ved at kommunikere med ham via telefon og internet.”