No remission or revocation of expulsion

Case no. 84/2024
Order made on 27 March 2025

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T
(Attorney Finn Roger Nielsen, assigned by the Court)

In 2020, T was sentenced to three years in prison and expelled from Denmark with a permanent entry ban for, among other things, repeated offences of aggravated assault (stabbing). In 2022, T was given a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for eight months and once again expelled from Denmark, this time with a six-year entry ban, for repeated offences of assault, among other things.

In July 2023, T requested revocation of the expulsion order or shortening of the entry ban. T claimed that the circumstances had changed significantly as her daughter, who had previously lived with a foster family, had been moved to a youth institution and had been diagnosed with ADHD, among other things. T requested that her daughter be questioned as part of the investigation of the case.

The District Court decided that the daughter should not be questioned, and T’s request for revocation of the expulsion order or shortening of the entry ban was not granted. The High Court affirmed the District Court’s decisions in April 2024.

T was expelled to Uzbekistan in July 2024.

The first question before the Supreme Court was whether the case should be remitted for questioning of T’s daughter. If there was no basis for remitting the case, the Supreme Court was to consider whether the changes in the daughter’s health in particular could lead to revocation of the expulsion order or shortening of the entry ban.

Referring to the legislative history, the Supreme Court stated that section 50(1) of the Aliens Act implies that the expulsion of an alien under sections 22-24 of the Aliens Act must only be revoked if maintaining the expulsion would with certainty be contrary to Denmark’s international obligations, including article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The same applies to the question of shortening the duration of an entry ban, cf. section 32(10) of the Aliens Act. If the foreign national has minor children, the significance of changes concerning the children must be included in the assessment. Whether consideration should be given to the children must therefore be clarified.

Regarding the case at hand, the Supreme Court stated that a number of people, including the daughter’s foster mother, had been questioned, and these people had shed light on the significance of the expulsion and return of T from the daughter’s perspective. Furthermore, information had been obtained from, in particular, the social authorities about the daughter’s health condition and the relationship between T and her daughter.  

In light of this, the Supreme Court found that the daughter’s circumstances had been sufficiently established. There was thus no reason to question the daughter. 

With regard to the question of revocation of the expulsion etc., the Supreme Court stated that T had not lived with her daughter for almost all of her life. T’s contact with her daughter before the expulsion was also very limited. In 2020, when she was first expelled, T was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for serious assault, and in 2022, T was again sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and expelled for serious assault. Prior to these two convictions, T had also been convicted of serious assault and sentenced to suspended expulsion. 

Based on an overall assessment, the Supreme Court found that the changes in the daughter’s health would not have led to T not being expelled or a shorter entry ban.

The Supreme Court thus affirmed the order of the High Court.