Permanent expulsion of Turkish citizen

Case no. 122/2020
Judgment delivered on 26 October 2021

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T had been convicted of violation of particularly Section 192a of the Danish Penal Code for having been in possession of a semi-automatic pistol with seven live bullets with two co-defendants. The High Court sentenced him to imprisonment for three years and three months and expulsion from Denmark with a permanent entry ban. The case before the Supreme Court concerned his sentence and whether he should be expelled from Denmark.

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence of imprisonment for three years and three months.

T, who was a Turkish citizen, was covered by Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association between the EEC and Turkey (the Association Decision), and what remained to be determined by the Supreme Court was whether expulsion would be in contravention of Article 14(1) of the Association Decision and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Referring to the fact that T had previously been convicted of similar serious gun crime, the Supreme Court mainly held that T’s conduct had to be regarded as constituting a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting fundamental interests of society, cf. Article 14(1) of the Association Decision, and that the condition in this provision that his conduct must represent a threat had thus been met.

In its proportionality assessment, the Supreme Court gave importance to the fact that T’s ties to Denmark were much stronger than his ties to Turkey. However, in addition to being a Turkish citizen, he did have some connection to Turkey, and he would not be unable to fit into Turkish society if he were expelled.

Considering the nature and severity of his offence and the fact that T had previously been sentenced to suspended expulsion from Denmark for a similar crime, the Supreme Court considered based on an overall assessment of the facts that the reasons for expelling T were so compelling that they outweighed the reasons for not expelling him.

The Supreme Court further held that permanent expulsion of T was not a disproportionate measure, referring particularly to the facts that T had been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment for serious gun crime for the second time, and that, when he was sentenced to suspended expulsion in a similar case, he was cautioned that continuing his criminal activities could result in permanent expulsion. In addition, the Supreme Court gave importance to the fact that T did have some connection to Turkey.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that there was no basis for concluding that expelling T would be in contravention of Article 14(1) of the Association Decision or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the High Court.