Adam JOHANSEN against Denmark, Application no. 27801/19
| Publisher | Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights |
| Publication Date | 1 February 2022 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0201DEC002780119 |
| Other Languages / Attachments | Decision |
| Cite as | Adam JOHANSEN against Denmark, Application no. 27801/19, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0201DEC002780119, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 1 February 2022, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,622f080f4.html [accessed 1 October 2022] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
Johansen v. Denmark: Danish-Tunisian national's Article 8 complaint against his stripping of citizenship and deportation order found inadmissible
On 3 March 2022, the ECtHR released its decision in the case of Johansen v Denmark. The case involved a dual Danish and Tunisian national who had his Danish citizenship stripped on account of terrorism charges. The applicant had lived most of his life in Denmark but travelled to Syria in September 2013 and stayed until February 2014 undertaking training with the Islamic State. In October 2017 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to four years imprisonment by the District Court in Denmark. In November 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of depriving the applicant of his Danish nationality and expelling him from Denmark with a permanent ban on return. The applicant complained that the withdrawal of his Danish citizenship and expulsion order violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision to strip the applicant of his Danish nationality had been carefully taken into account and had not been arbitrary. Furthermore, it continued that the Danish authorities had acted diligently and swiftly and had given the applicant opportunity to contest the previous rulings. It considered that it was legitimate for Denmark to take a firm stand against terrorism and therefore was satisfied that a thorough assessment which balanced competing interests had been made when deciding on the deportation order. The Court thereby concluded that the decision was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and rejected the applicant's complaint as inadmissible and manifestly ill-founded.
ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 4 March 2022
