Expulsion of Turkish citizen

Case no. 105/24
Judgment delivered on 16 April 2025

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T is a Turkish citizen. He is not married or in a cohabiting relationship, but he has a 9-year-old son who is a Danish citizen. The High Court had found T guilty of rape in the form of sexual activity other than intercourse, indecent exposure and duress. T was given a consecutive prison sentence of one year and sentenced to expulsion from Denmark with a six-year entry ban. 

The case before the Supreme Court concerned the issue of whether expulsion would with certainty be in contravention of Denmark’s international obligations, including article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to respect for private life etc., article 14 of the decision of the Association Council on the Agreement establishing an Association between the EEC and Turkey and article 20 of the the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

The Supreme Court stated, among other things, that expulsion would amount to a restriction of T’s right to respect for his private life or family under the ECHR, and that the decisive factor is whether expulsion must be regarded as necessary to prevent disorder or crime, which must be based on a proportionality test.

According to article 14 of the Association Decision, a Turkish citizen covered by the Decision can only be expelled on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Measures on grounds of public policy or public security may be taken only if the personal conduct of the individual concerned constitutes at present a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. 

Article 20 TFEU as interpreted by the European Court of Justice only precludes expulsion of a third-country national to a third country if that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, and when the envisaged expulsion would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union. This must be based on an assessment of whether there is a relationship of dependency between the parent and the child. 

Based on an overall assessment, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no such relationship of dependency that would require the son to leave the EU if T was expelled. 

Referring to the criminal offences committed in the case, T’s other convictions for serious assault and many other convictions, the Supreme Court held that there was a substantial risk that T would commit serious offences in Denmark again if he was not expelled.

Finally, based on an assessment of T’s offences and his ties with Denmark and Turkey, the Supreme Court did not find it to be disproportionate to expel T.

The Supreme Court thus held that T was to be expelled with a six-year entry ban. 

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.