| Applicant name | SHARAFANE |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | DENMARK |
| Application no. | 5199/23 |
| Date | 12/11/2024 |
| Judges | Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Tim Eicke, Faris Vehabović, Armen Harutyunyan, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Anne Louise Bormann, Mateja Đurović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (disorder and crime) |
| Type of privacy | Private life |
| Keywords | Re-entry ban |
| Facts of the case | The application concerns an order made in criminal proceedings for the expulsion of a settled migrant. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | The applicant’s prospects of being readmitted to Denmark after the expiry of the six-year re-entry ban remain purely theoretical. He has been left without any realistic prospect of entering, let alone returning to, Denmark. For him, the six-year re-entry ban would de facto amount to a permanent ban. Accordingly, in the present case, the fact that the re-entry ban was limited to six years cannot be attributed decisive weight as a factor capable of rendering the applicant’s expulsion compatible with Article 8. The Court is aware, as pointed out by the Government, that this finding may be perceived as differential treatment based on nationality. The Court points out, however, that such differential treatment is based on the legitimate ground that the expulsion of the applicant for six years, with no realistic prospect of ever returning to Denmark, would have a much more serious and negative impact on his private life than an expulsion with a six-year re-entry ban would have for other nationals who do have the possibility to return at least for a visit after their re-entry ban has expired. The Court also notes that the assessment of the applicant’s prospects of returning after the expiry of the re-entry ban only becomes relevant in those few borderline cases where the length of the re‑entry ban becomes decisive in the assessment of the compatibility of the expulsion order with Article 8, as provided for under Danish law. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; |
| Documents | Judgment |