Denmark / Supreme Court of Denmark / No. 91/2024
-
Denmark / Supreme Court of Denmark / No. 91/2024
Key facts of the case:
T, who was a Polish national, had been convicted of drug offences in four cases by having received and possessed a total of 39 kg of cocaine in four cases, of which she transferred a total of 24 kg to several customers and possessed 15 kg for onward transfer. She was punished in the High Court with imprisonment for 12 years and expelled from Denmark permanently. Before the Supreme Court, the case concerned the sentencing, including the significance of T's confession. A decision had also to be made on the deportation.
After an overall assessment of the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found that T, regardless of any confession discount, should be punished with imprisonment for 14 years. With regard to the significance of the confession for the sentencing, the Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that the case had been fully investigated at the time of the confession. As there was thus no basis for assuming that the police had been spared a longer investigation as a result of the confession, the case was covered by category 3, cf. The Supreme Court's judgment of 15 May 2025. Therefore, as a starting point, there should be a reduction of the sentence of between approx. 10% and approx. 20%. After an overall assessment, the Supreme Court found that the sentence should be reduced by 2 years (14.3%), and then agreed that the sentence was set at imprisonment for 12 years.
The Supreme Court also found that the expulsion of T, who had a minor son in Denmark, was not in violation of the EU Residence Directive or Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that a permanent entry ban was not disproportionate under EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights. In this regard, the Supreme Court noted that an entry ban issued to a foreign national who is covered by the EU rules can be lifted upon application.Key legal question raised by the court:
Whether expulsion would be in breach of Article 27 or Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 (EU Residence Directive) or of the right to respect for private and family life, cf. Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Outcome of the case:
In case of a serious drug crime, expulsion is assessed as imperative for reasons of public security, cf. Article 28(3)(a) of the Directive. The crime thus outweighs the consideration of T's connection to Denmark and the consequences that deportation would have for her son. Consequently, expulsion is not a disproportionate intervention contrary to Article 27(2), first indent, and Article 28(1) of the Directive, or to Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. T was expelled from Denmark with a permanent entry ban.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
Expulsion will not be contrary to the EU Residence Directive or the Human Rights Convention. This is a drug crime of such a nature and seriousness, as also expressed by the length of the sentence, that expulsion is imperative for reasons of public security, cf. Article 28(3)(a) of the Directive. The crime thus outweighs the consideration of T's connection to Denmark and the consequences that deportation would have for her son, who will have a greater connection to his father when she is released or released on probation. Moreover, the son will at that time be of an age where he himself will be able to visit his mother in Poland. T is not without the prerequisites for being able to establish herself there. She speaks the language and has visited the country several times. Expulsion is therefore proportionate under Article 27(2) of the Residence Directive, cf. Article 28(1), Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The question is therefore whether expulsion would be contrary to Article 27 or Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 (EU Residence Directive) or to the right to respect private and family life, cf. Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On this basis, the Supreme Court finds that this is an exceptional case and that the expulsion of T must therefore be considered imperatively necessary for reasons of public security, cf. Article 28(3)(a) of the Directive. Notwithstanding her strong connection to Denmark, there are such very weighty reasons that expulsion is not a disproportionate intervention contrary to Article 27(2), first indent, and Article 28(1), or with Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
Udvisning vil ikke være i strid med EU-opholdsdirektivet eller Menneskerettighedskonventionen. Der er tale om narkotikakriminalitet af en sådan karakter og grovhed, som også udtrykt ved straffens længde, at udvisning er bydende nødvendig af hensyn til den offentlige sikkerhed, jf. direktivets artikel 28, stk. 3, litra a. Kriminaliteten vejer således tungere end hensynet til T’s tilknytning til Danmark og de følger, en udvisning vil have for hendes søn, som vil have en større tilknytning til sin far, når hun løslades eller prøveløslades. Sønnen vil i øvrigt på det tidspunkt have en alder, hvor han selv vil kunne besøge sin mor i Polen. T er ikke uden forudsætninger for at kunne etablere sig dér. Hun taler sproget og har besøgt landet flere gange. Udvisning er derfor proportional efter opholdsdirektivets artikel 27, stk. 2, jf. artikel 28, stk. 1, EU-Chartrets artikel 7 og Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 8.
Spørgsmålet er herefter, om udvisning vil være i strid med artikel 27 eller artikel 28 i direktiv 2004/38/EF af 29. april 2004 (EU-opholdsdirektivet) eller med retten til respekt for privatliv og familieliv, jf. EU-Chartrets artikel 7 og Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 8.
På denne baggrund finder Højesteret, at der er tale om et ekstraordinært tilfælde, og at udvisning af T således må anses for bydende nødvendig af hensyn til den offentlige sikkerhed, jf. direktivets artikel 28, stk. 3, litra a. Uanset hendes stærke tilknytning til Danmark foreligger der sådanne meget tungtvejende grunde, at udvisning ikke er et uproportionalt indgreb i strid med direktivets artikel 27, stk. 2, 1. led, og artikel 28, stk. 1, eller med EU-Chartrets artikel 7 og Menneskerettighedskonventionens artikel 8.