Expulsion of Romanian citizen

Case no. 25/2021
Judgment delivered on 25 August 2021

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T and two other offenders had been convicted of attempted burglary under Section 276a, cf. Section 21, of the Danish Penal Code. T was sentenced to imprisonment for 40 days and expulsion from Denmark with a four-year entry ban. T had no criminal record of relevance to this case.

The issue before the Supreme Court only concerned expulsion.

T was 28 years old and a Romanian citizen. He was born and raised in Romania, and had most recently resided legally in Denmark according to the Danish Aliens Act for a period of one year, five months and 21 days. According to the EU Residence Directive, the total duration of T’s stay in Denmark was approx. six years, based on which the Supreme Court concluded that T had acquired a right of permanent residence in Denmark.

The question then remained whether expelling T would be in accordance with the principles applicable under the EU rules on restrictions of the right to free movement, cf. section 26b of the Aliens Act.

In determining whether T’s conduct represented a threat under the EU Residence Directive, the majority of the Supreme Court particularly gave importance to the facts that the attempted burglary was committed at night, with two other offenders and after the three of them had driven around the neighbourhood for several hours carrying tools and masks in the car. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the conditions for regarding T’s conduct as representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, cf. Article 27(2) of the Directive, were met. The Supreme Court also stated that this type of crime constituted a serious social problem, and that serious grounds of public policy or public security applied in this case, cf. Article 28(2) of the Directive.

In its proportionality assessment and considering T’s very limited ties with Denmark and personal situation in general, the Supreme Court held that expelling T would not contravene the proportionality principle in the EU Residence Directive or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court thus affirmed the judgment of the High Court concerning expulsion.