Information Note on the Court’s case-law 44

July 2002

Amrollahi v. Denmark - 56811/00

Judgment 11.7.2002 [Section I]

Article 8

Expulsion

Threatened separation of foreigner from wife and children due to expulsion order following conviction: violation

Facts : The applicant, an Iranian national, left Iran in 1987 and eventually arrived in Denmark, where he was granted a residence permit in 1990 on the ground that he had deserted from the Iranian army. He began cohabiting with a Danish woman, with whom he had a child in 1996. They married in 1997 and had another child in 2001. Shortly after the marriage, the applicant was convicted of drugs offen ces and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and expulsion from Denmark, with a life-long ban on his return. The applicant unsuccessfully applied for a review of the expulsion order on the basis of his changed family situation. The immigration authoritie s’ finding that the applicant would not risk persecution in Iran was upheld by the Refugee Board in January 2000 and the applicant’s subsequent request for a reconsideration of the expulsion order was ultimately dismissed.

Law : Article 8 – The expulsion or der constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for family life. The interference was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of prevention of disorder and crime. As to its necessity, the offence of which he was con victed was serious and the fact that he had no previous convictions did not detract from its gravity. Moreover, since the applicant had left Iran as an adult, had been educated there and spoke the language, he had ties with his country of origin. However, there was nothing to suggest that he had maintained strong links since then. As to his ties in Denmark, they were mainly with his wife and children, who are all Danish nationals, and there was no doubt as to the “effectiveness” of his family life there, so that there were strong ties with Denmark. Even if it was not impossible for the members of his family to live in Iran, it would cause obvious and serious difficulties, and they could not be expected to go there. Moreover, there was no indication that they could obtain authorisation to live in any other country. Consequently, the applicant’s expulsion would mean the separation of the family and would thus be disproportionate to the aims pursued.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The applican t did not respond to the Court’s invitation to submit his claims for just satisfaction.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes