Reporting duty

Case no. 15/2021
Judgment delivered on 18 May 2021

The Prosecution Service
vs.
U

The question before the Supreme Court was whether an alien, U, could be punished for having violated his reporting duty 332 times from 24 July 2018 to 20 June 2019. If this question was answered in the affirmative, the Supreme Court was to consider his sentence. 

In June 2007, U was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and expelled with a permanent entry ban. As he was expelled from Denmark, his residence permit was withdrawn, but he could not be expelled by force. After having served his sentence, U thus had exceptional leave to remain in Denmark. He was ordered to reside at and report to the Sandholm refugee centre and later to Departure Centre Kærshovedgård. In January 2017, his residence duty was lifted. By way of a decision of 6 July 2018, U was ordered to report daily between 9 am and 3 pm to the police headquarters in Aarhus. They are located about 5 kilometres from the residence he shares with his spouse and their three children.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgement from March 2021, the Court stated that, for a person with exceptional leave to remain in Denmark, the reporting duty is a prerequisite for being allowed to stay in this country although he has been expelled. The Supreme Court held that the reporting duty did not amount to a disproportionate restriction of U’s right to respect for his private life or family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or – in respect of the period up to 1 May 2019 – his freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention which, according to the travaux préparatoires for the Danish Aliens Act, applied to people with exceptional leave to remain in Denmark at the time.

U had two previous convictions for not having fulfilled his residence and reporting duty. When fixing the sentence, this should thus be considered his third offence. The Supreme Court sentenced him to imprisonment for seven months. In addition, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s expulsion of U with a six-year entry ban.

The High Court had reached a different conclusion as regards the sentence.