Expulsion of Afghan citizen without any ties to the recipient country

Case no. 29/2023
Judgment delivered on 20 September 2023

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T had been convicted of violation of the Danish Penal Code for possession of four firearms with ammunition in particularly aggravating circumstances as well as for several violations of the Danish Firearms Act and the Danish Knife Act, and the High Court had sentenced him to imprisonment for three years and expulsion from Denmark with a permanent entry ban. The issue before the Supreme Court only concerned the expulsion order.

The Supreme Court concluded, among other things, that expulsion would amount to a restriction of T’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for which reason the issue would have to be resolved based on a proportionality assessment.

T also had previous convictions for similar offences, for which an expulsion warning had been issued against him.

According to the information available to the Supreme Court, T was born in Tajikistan and had moved to Denmark when he was 13 years old. He was not married or in a cohabiting relationship and had no children. His parents and brother, who were now Danish citizens, lived in Denmark. He had gone to school in Denmark and had completed lower secondary school. He had not completed any other education. He had not worked since 2008 and had received cash benefits for many years.

In Denmark, he was registered as an Afghan citizen, but according to the evidence, he had only lived in Afghanistan until he was around two years old. He spoke none of the languages spoken in Afghanistan, and he had no family there. From his early childhood and until the time when he left for Denmark, he had lived in Russia with his family, and his mother was originally a Russian citizen. He had family in Russia and spoke Russian.

The Supreme Court held that, based on the information in the case, it had to be considered that T could not be expected to take up residence in Russia, which could therefore not qualify as a recipient country. Accordingly, his ties to the recipient country could only be assessed with Afghanistan as the recipient country, as he was registered as a citizen there.

The Supreme Court ruled that T’s ties to Afghanistan were in fact non-existent, but that it deemed, based on an overall assessment, that it would not amount to a disproportionate measure to expel T to prevent disorder or crime. However, as a permanent entry ban would be disproportionate, the Supreme Court reduced the entry ban to six years.

The High Court had reached a different conclusion.