| Applicant name | WINTHER |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | DENMARK |
| Application no. | 9588/21 |
| 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 | No violation |
| Reason | Necessary (disorder and crime) |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy; private life |
| Keywords | Fair balance |
| Facts of the case | he application concerns an order made in criminal proceedings for the expulsion of a migrant, who had entered Denmark as an adult. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | Taking account of all the factors described above, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicant’s private and family life was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons. It notes that at all levels of jurisdiction there was an explicit and thorough assessment of whether the expulsion order could be considered to be contrary to Denmark’s international obligations. The Court points out in this connection that where independent and impartial domestic courts have carefully examined the facts, applying the relevant human rights standards consistently with the Convention and its case-law, and adequately weighed up the applicant’s personal interests against the more general public interest in the case, it is not for the Court to substitute its own assessment of the merits (including, in particular, its own assessment of the factual details of proportionality) for that of the competent national authorities. The only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so. In the Court’s opinion, such strong reasons are absent in the present case. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |