| Applicant name | NGUYEN |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Denmark |
| Application no. | 2116/21 |
| 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 | Relational privacy; private life; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Re-entry ban |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained that the High Court’s decision of 26 June 2020 to expel her from Denmark with a re-entry ban for 12 years (see paragraph 13 above), which had become final on 22 October 2020 (see paragraph 14 above), was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention |
| Analysis | The Court does not call into question the finding that the applicant’s offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that she posed a threat to public order at the time. It notes, however, that, that the applicant’s role in the crime was merely of a practical nature, and that prior to the case at hand, she had never been convicted, or exhibited any behaviour indicating that in general she 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 fact that the applicant had no previous convictions showing that she posed a threat to public order, that she had not received any previous warnings as to the risk of expulsion, that she had a minor daughter and that she was the primary caregiver of her disabled adult daughter, 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 re-entry ban for twelve years, although it could have reduced the length of the re‑entry ban. 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-nine years. She therefore had very strong ties with Denmark, in contrast with her ties with Vietnam. The Court is therefore of the view, given all the circumstances of the case, that the expulsion of the applicant combined with a re-entry ban for twelve years was disproportionate. |
| Other Article violation? | Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) 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; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; |
| Documents | Judgment |