| Applicant name | Sarac |
| Applicant type | Immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Denmark |
| Application no. | 19866/21 |
| Date | 09/04/2024 |
| Judges | Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Faris Vehabović, Branko Lubarda, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (crime and disorder |
| Type of privacy | Private life |
| Keywords | Expulsion immigrant |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained that the High Court’s decision of 4 June 2020 to expel him from Denmark with a lifelong ban on re-entry, which had become final on 12 October 2020, was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention |
| Analysis | Prior to the case at hand, the offences committed by the applicant as an adult concerned breaches of the legislation on controlled substances in 2012 and 2013, which resulted in, respectively, a suspended sentence of thirty days’ imprisonment and a fine, neither of which indicated that in general he posed a threat to public order. The Court also observes that the applicant had not previously been warned about the risk of expulsion or given a conditional expulsion order. Nevertheless, despite the facts that the applicant’s previous convictions did not indicate that he posed a general threat to public order and that he had not received any previous warnings as to the risk of expulsion, and although a relatively lenient sentence was imposed in the present case, the High Court decided to combine the expulsion of the applicant with a lifelong ban on his return to Denmark, although it could have reduced the length of the ban on re‑entry. The above observation should also be seen in the light of the fact that the applicant had arrived in Denmark at a very young age and had lawfully resided there for approximately twenty-six years. He thus had very strong ties with Denmark, as opposed to his ties with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court is therefore of the view, given all the circumstances of the case, that the expulsion of the applicant combined with a lifelong ban on his return was disproportionate. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,400 (five thousand four hundred euros), in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant; |
| Documents | Judgment |