The applicant, an Iranian-born individual residing in Denmark and recognised as a refugee, was repeatedly denied Danish nationality over eleven years due to his inability to meet Danish language requirements within the naturalisation procedure, which he claimed was caused by severe mental health problems resulting from torture. The ECtHR ultimately struck the case out as the applicant was eventually granted Danish nationality, and thus the matter was considered resolved within the meaning of Article 37(1)(b) ECHR.
- European Convention on Human Rights: Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination), Article 37 para 1(b) (Strike out right of the European Court of Human Rights)
- Danish Constitution of 1849, Article 44
- Consolidated Act on Danish Nationality No. 422 of 7 June 2004, sections 6(1) and 12(5)
- Act No. 714 of 25 June 2014 (Denmark) on granting citizenship to the applicant
The applicant was born in Iran in 1944. He was imprisoned and subjected to torture in Iran before escaping to Turkey in 1987, where he was granted refugee status on the condition that he renounced any right to return to Iran, and subsequently became resident in Denmark with his family in 1989. As a result of the torture, he suffered severe mental health problems, which he said made learning Danish difficult. Between 1998 and 2009, the applicant applied for Danish nationality eight times which were all denied as he did not meet the language requirements.
The applicant lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights in 2009. Following this, Danish authorities reopened his naturalisation application in 2012 and asked him to submit updated medical documentation, which he initially could not afford to provide. Following the Court’s stay of proceedings pending the domestic process, a new medical certificate in June 2013 confirmed that the applicant suffered from permanent mental health problems and was unable to meet the language and citizenship‑test requirements. Although the Ministry of Justice requested further documents, the applicant’s representative argued that the medical evidence already sufficed for exemption. The applicant was eventually granted nationality in 2014.
The applicant argued that, despite eventually acquiring Danish nationality in 2014, the matter was not resolved because the authorities’ repeated refusals over more than sixteen years were arbitrary, disregarded his mental health-related vulnerabilities, and were not subject to any effective appeal, raising complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. He emphasised that he remained stateless for many years, during which he was disenfranchised, unable to obtain a passport, and prevented from forming full political and legal ties with Denmark. He further noted that the Government never acknowledged any systemic deficiency or violation, delayed issuing his nationality certificate until March 2015, and provided no compensation.
The Government argued that the case should be struck out as the matter had been resolved by the applicant’s acquisition of Danish nationality and any effects of a potential violation had been redressed. They further submitted that the applicant himself had failed for years to provide the documents necessary for examining his nationality application, requiring the Ministry of Justice to advance the case exceptionally and ultimately granting him preferential treatment. They argued that the authorities had not denied him nationality between 2009 and 2014, but that he had simply not pursued his application domestically while complaining to the Court. The Government also maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies by failing to bring his case before the ordinary courts, that his inaction meant he could not be considered a “victim” under Article 34 ECHR, and that the application was in any event manifestly ill‑founded.
The Court struck the case out under Article 37(1)(b) ECHR on the basis that the matter had been resolved, noting that this provision requires both that the circumstances complained of no longer exist and that the effects of any possible violation have been effectively remedied. It found, first, that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14, all of which were inextricably linked to the refusal to grant him Danish nationality, no longer obtained once he was in fact granted nationality.
Secondly, the Court held that any alleged effects of the earlier refusal of nationality, such as the applicant’s inability to vote or lack of a Danish passport, had been remedied through the conferral of nationality, and that no special circumstances required continued examination of the application. It therefore concluded that both conditions under Article 37(1)(b) were satisfied and that the grant of Danish nationality constituted an adequate and sufficient remedy for the applicant’s complaints.
The Court did not directly engage with the applicant’s complaint regarding his statelessness at any point in its reasoning.
Application struck out; applicant awarded costs and expenses of EUR 735.
- Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, ECHR 2007-I
- Pisano v. Italy [GC], no. 36732/97, decision of 24 October 2002
- Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, no. 44230/06, 13 January 2015
- Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012
- Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011
The European Disability Forum (EDF) and the International Disability Alliance (IDA) were granted leave to intervene and submitted joint comments: HP-v-Denmark-EDF-IDA-Final.doc