Communicated on 24 June 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 32834/18 Loloah AZIZ THAMER AL-EBRAH against Denmark lodged on 6 July 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is an Iraqi national born in 1976 who entered Denmark in 2000. She was granted a residence permit in Denmark in October 2005. She is married and has five children.

In 2014 she applied for Danish nationality under the Act on Danish nationality and Circular 10873 of 13 October 2015. She enclosed two medical certificates stating that she suffered from chronic schizophrenia, for which reason it would impossible, permanently, for her to learn Danish to the level required for being granted citizenship and to take the special citizenship test. On 16 February 2016 her request was refused by the Ministry ( Indfødsretskontoret , Udl æ ndinge , Integrations - og Boligministreriet ) since she did not fulfil the requirements regarding skills in the Danish language and a certificate of a special citizenship test, set out in section 24, subsections 1 and 3 of Circular 10873 of 13 October 2015, and since the Naturalisation Committee of the Danish Parliament had found that she could not by virtue of section 4 of the Circular be dispensed from these requirements.

Section 4 sets out that where exceptional circumstances make it appropriate, the question of whether exemption from the conditions of subsections (1) and (3) may be granted will be submitted to the Naturalisation Committee of the Danish Parliament. The question will be submitted if the applicant certifies that he or she suffers from a physical or mental illness of a very serious nature and consequently finds him or herself to be incapable – or to have no reasonable prospects – of satisfying the conditions.

The applicant brought the decision before the District Courts submitting that, being disabled, she had been discriminated against, inter alia, in breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, and that she should be granted non-pecuniary compensation.

By a judgment of 25 September 2017 the District Court ( Københavns Byret ) found that the applicant had been discriminated against in breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, but refused her claim for compensation, stating that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

On 3 November 2017 the applicant re-applied for Danish nationality and enclosed an updated medical certificate of 24 October 2007 stating that it was highly likely that she suffered from schizophrenia. The psychiatrist could not make any eye contact with her, and it was only her husband who spoke. The latter explained that the applicant needed constant supervision at home. The certificate concluded that the applicant was far too ill to participate in a Danish course or to attempt to take the special citizenship test.

Her request was refused on 6 April 2018 by the Ministry ( Indfødsretskontoret , Udl æ ndinge - og Integrations Ministeriet ) since she did not fulfil the requirements regarding documentation for skills in the Danish language and the certificate of a special citizenship test, set out in section 24, subsections 1 and 3 in Circular 10873 of 13 October 2015. It was added that the judgment of 25 September 2017 was enclosed with her application, when the Parliamentary Naturalisation Committee assessed whether the applicant could be exempted from the said conditions. However, at a meeting on 15 March 2018 the Parliamentary Naturalisation Committee found that the applicant should not be listed for the coming naturalisation bill.

The applicant did not bring this decision before the court. She maintains, in the light of the judgment of 25 September 2017, that such a remedy would be ineffective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies? In particular, in the light of the judgment of 25 September 2017, should she have brought her complaint before the domestic courts anew (see Nazari v. Denmark ( dec ,), no. 64372/11, § 34, 6 September 2016)?

2. Being disabled, has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?