Life-long deportation of a drug dealer father of six children. The right to respect for family life in the prevention of crime

JUDGMENT

Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark 23.10.2018 (no. 25593/14)

see here  

SUMMARY

Life deportation. Family life. A Jordanian lived in Denmark and had originally married a stateless Palestinian woman with Danish citizenship and afterwards he was married to an Iraqi woman. He had a total of 6 children, all of whom were Danish citizens. He was convicted of drug trafficking and was expelled for life. The ECtHR found that the applicant spoke very little Danish, was not working in Denmark, and that his parents and siblings were living in Jordan, and that he had divorced from his second wife. The Court ruled that the deportation decision was based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that his deportation was proportionate and that a fair balance had been achieved between his right to respect for his family life and the prevention of crime. There was no violation of his family life.

PROVISION 

Article 8

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant, Ahmad Assem Hassan Ali, is a Jordanian national who was born in 1977.

He entered Denmark in 1997 when he was 20 years old and was granted residence after marrying a stateless Palestinian woman with Danish nationality. They had three children together between 1997 and 2001. After divorcing in 2001, he married an Iraqi woman of Kurdish origin. They divorced in 2013 after having three children between 2003 and 2009. All six children have Danish nationality.

After a first conviction in 2006 for assault and drugs offences, he was found guilty in 2009 of trafficking cocaine into Denmark and was jailed. Given the seriousness of the crime, the District Court ordered his expulsion and a permanent ban on his return. The decision was upheld on appeal.

In proceedings against the deportation order, he asserted his strong links to his children, wife and ex-wife, stated that they visited him in prison, and that he would lose contact if he were deported.
In June 2013 the District Court refused to revoke the expulsion order, finding that his crime constituted “a major problem for Danish society”. Under domestic law expulsion could only be revoked if an applicant’s personal circumstances had changed, and the District Court found that his allegation of a deterioration in his children’s health since the expulsion order was unsubstantiated.
The High Court upheld that decision in January 2014. It found that his argument that he intended to re-marry his first ex-wife was not a change in circumstance either. He was deported in April 2014.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

The Court reiterated that States had the right to control the entry and residence of aliens on their territory, including the right to expel an alien convicted of a criminal offence. However, any such decision had to respect Article 8 and be in line with Convention case-law.

The Court recognised that the domestic courts had carefully balanced the competing interests and had explicitly taken into account the criteria set out in its case-law.

Looking at his social, cultural and family ties with Denmark and Jordan, the Court noted that in the proceedings leading to the expulsion order, the District Court had found that he spoke only a little Danish, had never had a job in Denmark and that his parents and siblings had remained in Jordan.

As for his family situation, the Court decided that the Convention criterion on possible difficulties for spouses in the country of expulsion did not apply to him. When he had stated that he planned to re-marry his first ex-wife, he was in prison and facing expulsion. He could not therefore have had a justified expectation of exercising his right to a family life in Denmark with her. He had already divorced his second ex-wife by the time the District Court had refused to revoke the expulsion order.

As concerned the criterion of the best interests of the children, the issue was the difficulties they might encounter in Denmark due to separation from their father, given that the mothers planned to remain in the country. The domestic courts had examined that issue and found that the children’s health had not deteriorated since the 2009 expulsion order. The courts had also found that his maintaining contact with his children since the expulsion order could not change matters either.

The Court was not therefore convinced that the best interests of the children had been so adversely affected by his deportation that they should outweigh the other criteria to be taken into account, such as the prevention of disorder or crime.

As he had committed a serious drugs crime, the Court found that the expulsion decision had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Moreover, the measure had been proportionate in that a fair balance had been struck between his right to respect for his family life, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other.

Overall, there had been no violation of Article 8(echrcaselaw.com editing). 


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες