This case concerns a stateless Palestinian from Lebanon who had resided in Denmark since 1993 and was convicted of comprehensive, organised and aggravated drug trafficking and violence, leading to a six-year prison sentence and permanent expulsion. The applicant argued his expulsion violated Article 8 of the Convention due to his strong family ties, including to his eight Danish children. The ECtHR found that Denmark had not violated Article 8, ruling that the Danish Supreme Court had carefully balanced the competing interests and that the gravity of the applicant’s persistent and aggravated drug crimes outweighed the protection afforded to his family ties.
- Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Sections 22, 24a, 24b, 26, 31, 32, 49, 49a, and 50 of the Danish Aliens Act
- Section 191 of the Danish Criminal Code
- Danish Stimulants Act
The applicant, a stateless Palestinian born in Lebanon, entered Denmark in 1993 at the age of 23 and later obtained a residence permit through marriage to a Danish national of Lebanese origin. The couple had eight children, all Danish nationals. Between 2006 and 2009, the applicant committed a series of serious offences, including extensive drug trafficking, leading to a six-year prison sentence and a final expulsion order with a lifelong re-entry ban. The applicant argued that his expulsion would disproportionately harm his family life, while the authorities assessed that he could safely return to Lebanon and eventually enforced the expulsion in late 2014.
The applicant argued that his expulsion from Denmark would violate his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. He stressed that the consequences of a lifelong expulsion would be disproportionately severe for his family, in particular his eight minor children, all of whom were Danish nationals and had lived in Denmark their entire lives.
The applicant maintained that he occupied a central role in the daily life of his children and that his removal would effectively deprive them of meaningful contact with their father. He submitted that this loss of daily interaction should be given significant weight regardless of the nature of the offences for which he had been convicted. He further argued that his expulsion would risk destabilising the children’s situation, as several of them might feel compelled to leave Denmark to accompany him, which would substantially worsen their living conditions and disrupt their upbringing.
The applicant also pointed out that the domestic courts initially recognised the weight of his family circumstances. The lower instance City Court and High Court decided to impose only a suspended expulsion order, explicitly referring to the presence of his wife and eight children in Denmark. He relied on this as evidence that the family considerations were compelling and should have prevented an unsuspended expulsion.
Regarding admissibility, the applicant rejected the Government’s assertion that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. He submitted that he had fully exhausted the available avenues by appealing the expulsion order to both the High Court and the Supreme Court. He argued that no material changes in his personal or family circumstances had occurred after the Supreme Court’s judgment that could have justified initiating a new procedure under Section 50 of the Aliens Act.
The Government did not dispute that the applicant’s expulsion interfered with his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. However, they maintained that the interference was justified, lawful, and proportionate, and that no violation of Article 8 had occurred.
The Government first argued that the application was inadmissible. They submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he had not requested a review of the expulsion order under Section 50(1) of the Aliens Act, a remedy they considered available for raising changes in circumstances after the original judgment.
On the merits, the Government stressed that the applicant’s removal was necessary for a democratic society to prevent disorder and crime. They highlighted the exceptional seriousness of the criminal offences for which he had been convicted, referring to the extensive and aggravated nature of the drug-related activities described in the domestic proceedings, which involved large quantities of hashish and an attempt to purchase cocaine. In their view, combating major drug trafficking is a pressing public interest, and the authorities must be able to act firmly against those who contribute to it.
The Government further submitted that the applicant’s integration into Danish society was limited. They noted that he had no work or educational ties in Denmark and had been dependent on State early retirement pension since 2004 and had only limited command of the Danish language. In their assessment, these factors significantly reduced the weight of his private-life interests.
The Government also emphasised that the applicant maintained substantial ties outside Denmark. They referred to his close family links in Lebanon and Syria, his repeated stays in Syria in the years prior to his arrest, his attempts to purchase property abroad, extensive phone contact with numerous numbers in Lebanon and Syria, and multiple money transfers to both countries. In the Government’s view, these elements indicated that the applicant continued to have meaningful connections to the region and would not face insurmountable difficulties upon return.
Finally, the Government argued that the impact of the expulsion on the applicant’s family life did not outweigh the strong public interest in his removal. They maintained that the applicant’s children could continue to maintain contact with him through visits or communication by telephone or internet, and that no obstacles to maintaining such contact had been identified.
Accordingly, the Government submitted that the interference with the applicant’s rights was proportionate to the aims pursued and that no violation of Article 8 of the Convention had occurred.
The Court first addressed admissibility. It rejected the Government’s objection that the applicant had failed to use the Section 50 review mechanism of the Aliens Act, noting that this remedy applies only when “a material change has occurred” in the individual’s circumstances (§ 52, 58-59). The Court found that the passage of time since the Supreme Court judgment was foreseeable and that there was no information about the impact of the applicant’s subsequent divorce on his family situation, concluding that the applicant was not required to pursue a remedy that could not reasonably have offered redress.
Turning to the merits, the Court recalled that the expulsion constituted an interference with family life under Article 8, pursued a legitimate aim, and was in accordance with the law. It therefore assessed whether the measure was “necessary in a democratic society”, applying the criteria developed in Üner and Maslov, including the seriousness of the offences, the applicant’s integration, the best interests of the children, and the strength of ties to both Denmark and the country of return.
The Court placed significant weight on the gravity of the offences. It quoted the domestic findings that the applicant had held “a leading and central role in the commission of persistent, organised and aggravated drug crimes” (§ 66). It further noted the quantities of the drugs involved and reiterated its established position that “the authorities show great firmness to those who actively contribute to the spread of this scourge” (§ 66).
In assessing the applicant’s personal ties to Denmark, the Court observed that although he had lived in Denmark for many years, the Danish Supreme Court had considered that he was “not well integrated into Danish society” (§ 71), noting his lack of employment, limited language skills, and reliance on State benefits. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had contrasted these factors with the applicant’s continued ties abroad, particularly to Lebanon and Syria.
Regarding the best interests of the applicant’s children, the Court acknowledged the vulnerabilities identified by domestic authorities but found that “it is doubtful whether […] the applicant has substantiated that he had a central role in the family” (§ 78). It further noted that “the applicant has not pointed to any obstacles for the children to visit him in Lebanon or for the family to maintain contact via the telephone or the internet” (§ 81).
The Court considered that the domestic authorities had explicitly applied the correct criteria of Article 8 of the Convention and weighed the relevant factors thoroughly. It concluded that the expulsion was supported by “relevant and sufficient reasons” and that “a fair balance was struck between the applicant’s right to respect for his family life […] and the prevention of disorder or crime” (§ 82).
The Court found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
- Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008
- Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, 18 October 2006
- Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, 10 April 2012
- Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, 3 July 2012
- A.W. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 47486/06, 12 January 2010
- Sezen v. the Netherlands, no. 50252/99, 31 January 2006
- Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, 11 July 2002
- Amrollahi v. Denmark (dec.), no. 56811/00, 28 June 2001
- Savasci v. Germany (dec.), no. 45971/08, 19 March 2013
- Udeh v. Switzerland, no. 12020/09, 16 April 2013
- Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, 3 October 2014
- Cömert v. Denmark (dec.), no. 14474/03, 10 April 2006
- Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94