Expulsion of Turkish citizen

Case no. 36/2021
Judgment delivered on 18 August 2021

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T had been convicted of violation of particularly Section 191(2), cf. Subsection (1), first sentence, of the Danish Penal Code, cf. the law on euphoriants, for having been in possession of approx. 1 kg amphetamine for resale in collusion with two co-defendants. The High Court sentenced him to imprisonment for three years and expulsion with a six-year 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 three years in prison.

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. The Court was also to consider whether expelling T would be in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Considering the nature of and circumstances surrounding the offence, the Supreme Court agreed that, although T had no prior offences – except for three fines, his 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. Consequently, this condition of the Association Decision had to be regarded as being 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, 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 due to his strong ties to Denmark and weak ties to Turkey. His family and partner would be able to stay in contact with him, including by visiting him in Turkey as well as communicating with him by telephone and online. In its proportionality assessment, the Court also gave regard to the fact that the case only concerned a six-year entry ban.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the six-year entry ban did not amount to a disproportionate restriction 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.