UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
cases nos. 202106573/1 and 202105784/1
6 July 2022 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refoulement | Countries: Denmark - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic |
UNHCR Comments on the Urgency Law for Ukrainians (Proposal no. 145)
14 March 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
Adam JOHANSEN against Denmark, Application no. 27801/19
1 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Terrorism - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Denmark - Syrian Arab Republic - Tunisia |
CASE OF ABDI v. DENMARK (Application no. 41643/19)
The case concerns the Danish authorities’ decision in 2018 to expel the applicant, with a permanent ban on his re-entry to the country, following his conviction for possession of a firearm. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant submits that, in their decisions, the Danish courts failed to weigh in the balance that he did not have a significant criminal past, that he had never been issued with a warning that he might be expelled, and that he had strong ties to Denmark where he has lived with his family since he was four years old. 14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Denmark - Somalia |
M.A. v. Denmark
194. Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court is not satisfied, notwithstanding their margin of appreciation, that the authorities of the respondent State, when subjecting the applicant to a three-year waiting period before he could apply for family reunification with his wife, struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in being reunited with his wife in Denmark and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration with a view to protect the economic well-being of the country, to ensure the effective integration of those granted protection and to preserve social cohesion (see paragraph 165 above). 195. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 9 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Denmark - Syrian Arab Republic |
UNHCR Observations on the Proposal for amendments to the Danish Alien Act (Introduction of the possibility to transfer asylum-seekers for adjudication of asylum claims and accommodation in third countries)
8 March 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
R.H.M. (on behalf of Y.A.M.) v Denmark, communication No. 83/2019
5 March 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Countries: Denmark - Somalia |
UNHCR Observations on the Proposed Legal Measure to Repeal the Sunset Clause of the Act No. 1057 of 24 October 2019 (Act on the Deprivation of Nationality of Foreign Fighters)
22 September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
Nimo Mohamed Aden and Liban Muhammed Hassan v. Denmark
20 December 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Denmark |
A.B.H. v. Denmark
In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk if he were returned to Afghanistan, which is based not solely on his profile as a former employee of the international forces but also on the risk of future ill-treatment by the Taliban which reasonably follows from his individual circumstances including his past ill-treatment in his country of origin. 18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Afghanistan - Denmark |