immigrationlawyersdken

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Planned new scheme for work permits from 1 July 2022

A proposal for a bill intended to introduce a new supplementary pay limit scheme has been presented in Parliament. Read the proposal here (in Danish).

According to the proposal, the bill is scheduled to enter into force on July 1st 2022.

The condition linked to the new supplementary pay limit scheme is that you have been offered a job with an annual salary of DKK 375,00 or higher. This is lower than the requirement after the ordinary pay limit scheme, which is currently DKK 448,000.

It is also a requirement that your salary and terms of employment correspond to Danish standards.

The supplementary pay limit scheme also contains conditions in relation to the level of unemployment in Denmark and a condition that the company offering the job must have promoted the vacant position at ‘Jobnet’.

We assist both employers and employees in applications for work permits and have extensive experience.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

MJØLNERPARKEN RESIDENTS TO CONTINUE FIGHT IN COURT AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF INTEROR AND HOUSING – TWO UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS TO JOIN THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE RESIDENTS

On December 15, 2021, The Eastern High Court of Denmark ruled that residents in Mjølnerparken have the right to sue the Ministry of Interior and Housing for the measures in the “Ghetto Package”. The lawsuit more specifically concerns the Ministry of Interior and Housing’s approval of a development plan for Mjølnerparken, which entails that the residents’ homes must be sold.

The residents filed the lawsuit on 27 May 2020 and since then the Ministry of Interior and Housing has tried to have the case rejected. The Ministry was of the opinion that the residents could not sue the Ministry as the Ministry had not prepared the development plan and because the decision to approve the development plan was not in itself directed at the residents.

The Eastern High Court of Denmark has now rejected the Ministry’s claim on the grounds that the residents are concretely and individually affected by the Ministry’s approval of the development plan, which entails the sale of their home. The High Court finds that it is irrelevant that the development plan has not yet been implemented and the residents have not been terminated, as termination is such an intrusive circumstance that the residents must be allowed to challenge the validity of the approval before it has come this far.

The “Ghetto Package” and the lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior and Housing have received international attention, and with the decision of the Eastern High Court of 15 December 2021, two of the UN Special Rapporteurs have now requested the High Court for permission to intervene in the case in support of the residents.

The UN Special Rapporteurs are independent human rights experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council.

The two rapporteurs who have submitted a request to intervene in the case are the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary form of racism, E. Tendayi Achiume, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Balakrishnan Rajagopal.

We are representing the residents with support of the organizations Open Society Justice Initiative and Almen Modstand, and we are also assisting the UN Special Rapporteurs on their involvement in the case.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Final Call for British Citizens to apply for a residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement

British citizens who have resided in Denmark under EU law prior to 31 December 2020 must apply for a new residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement before 31 December 2021. It is therefore approaching final call for the Britons wishing to secure their future rights of residence in Denmark.

To qualify for a residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement,  it is a requirement that you have taken up residence in Denmark under EU law prior to the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. For instance as an employee, a person with sufficient funds or a family member to an EU citizen or British citizen. 

If you were not previously issued an EU residence document you can still apply for a residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement if you can demonstrate that you resided in Denmark under conditions encompassed by EU law by the end of 2020. You may therefore be covered by the withdrawal agreement even if you currently have a residence permit based on the Danish Aliens Act. 

If you have obtained the right to permanent residence In Denmark under EU law prior to 31. December 2020, but are temporarily residing abroad, you must still apply for a residence permit under the withdrawal agreement before the end of 2021. Under the Withdrawal Agreement you can retain your permanent residence permit as long as you return to Denmark within 5 years of your departure. If you have been away from Denmark for more than 2 years, you may therefore have the right to apply for a permanent residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement even though your previous permanent residence permit under EU law would have lapsed. 

The application must be submitted to the Danish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration (SIRI). If you are currently abroad, you can submit your application and have your biometrics recorded at a Danish representation or a Visa Application Centre (VFS). 

If you are in doubt about whether you are encompassed by the withdrawal agreement or you need help with the application procedure, you are welcome to get in touch.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Permanent Expulsion Violated the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8

On 14 September 2021 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of the right to private life pursuant to article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in a case where we assist a client whose 2,5 year prison sentence was accompanied by expulsion with a permanent reentry ban.

Our client is a Somali citizen who has legally resided in Denmark for more than 20 years after first arriving in the country at the age of 4. He has not since visited his country of birth and has limited Somali language skills.

In October 2018 the Western High Court convicted him of illegal possession of a loaded firearm as well as two counts of minor drug related offences, resulting in a 2,5 year prison sentence and expulsion with a permanent reentry ban.

Prior to this sentence, he had received a suspended prison sentence for robbery and a partly suspended prison sentence for burglary, both committed when he was a minor. As an adult he had been fined a number of times for traffic violations and for possession of illegal drugs. None of his prior convictions had led to a suspended expulsion or formal warnings of expulsion.

The ECtHR dealt with the complaint under the private life branch of article 8, as our client has not yet established a family of his own in Denmark.

Consequently the ECtHR assessed whether expulsion with a permanent reentry ban could be considered a proportionate reaction to the criminal offences for which our client was found guilty. The ECtHR took into account on the one hand the severity of the criminal offences and the length of the resulting sentence, and on the other hand our client’s strong attachment to Denmark and lack of ties to Somalia.  

The ECtHR stated that very weighty public order concerns must be demonstrated in order to impose a permanent reentry ban on a settled immigrant who has spent most of his life in the host country.

In this regard the ECtHR found that although viewed in isolation, the criminal offence that our client was convicted for constituted a threat against public order, it was not documented that our client constituted such a threat in general.    

When finding a violation of the right to private life under ECHR article 8, the ECtHR emphasized that our client’s sentence was relatively lenient, that he had never previously received a conditional expulsion order or a formal warning of expulsion, and that he had a very strong attachment to Denmark and only very tenuous ties to Somalia.

Read the full judgment here

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Danish rules on loss of citizenship for Danes born abroad to be reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of justice of the European Union (CJEU) will assess whether the Danish rules on automatic loss of citizenship at the age of 22 for Danes born with dual citizenship abroad, who do not fulfill certain conditions related to time spent in Denmark prior to that age, are contrary to EU law.

In a case where we assist a client whose application for retention of Danish citizenship after the age of 22 has been declined, the Eastern High Court in its ruling of June 8th 2021 agreed that the question required referral to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling cf. The Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) article 267 § 2. The question of whether the Danish Citizenship Act sect. 8 § 1 is compatible with TFEU article 20 concerning EU citizenship and the Charter of the European Union, article 7, concerning the right to respect for private and family life will thus be referred to the CJEU. 

It follows form the Danish Citizenship Act sect. 8 § 1, first sentence, that a person who is born with Danish citizenship abroad, and who has never either resided in Denmark (in practice a minimum of 3 consecutive months) or stayed in Denmark under circumstances indicating special attachment to the country (in practice combined visits of a minimum 1 year) will lose their Danish citizenship at the age of 22 unless this leads to statelessness. If an application for retention of citizenship is lodged between the age of 21 and 22 the Minister of Immigration and Integration may allow the applicant to retain citizenship based on an individual assessment of all the relevant facts, cf.  sect. 8 § 1, second sentence.

In cases where the individual concerned does not hold citizenship in any other EU country, the loss of Danish citizenship also entails loss of EU citizenship and any attached rights under EU law.

In its judgment in C-221/17, Tjebbes, EU:C:2019:189, the CJEU considered partially comparable Dutch rules according to which loss of Dutch citizenship automatically occur following 10 consecutive years of absence from Holland. In this regard, the CJEU held that in cases where loss of national citizenship also results in loss of Union Citizenship, the individual concerned is encompassed by EU-Law. Although a national rule on automatic loss of citizenship intended to ensure that citizenship is reserved for individuals with a certain degree of national attachment is not per se contrary to EU law, the state in question is obliged under EU law to carry out  an assessment of proportionality, taking into account the consequences for the individual of the loss of EU citizenship. 

As a result of this judgment, the Ministry of Immigration and Integration is now assessing the applicant’s affiliation with other EU countries as part of its decision-making process in relation to applications for retention of Danish citizenship.  This assessment is however only conducted when an application is submitted prior to the applicant’s 22nd birthday.

Our client is born in the United States to a Danish mother and thus holds dual Danish/American citizenship.  As she has never resided in Denmark she lost her Danish citizenship at the age of 22, and her subsequent application for retention of citizenship was declined, as she had not applied between the age of 21 and 22 as required by the Danish Citizenship Act sect. 8 § 1, second sentence.

The Dutch rule, which was the subject of the assessment in the Tjebbes-judgment differs from the Danish Citizenship Act sect. 8 § 1 in that it allows for continuous renewal of the 10-year period after which loss of Dutch citizenship occurs, through the simple act of applying for renewal of a Dutch ID document such as a passport. Contrary to this, the Danish Citizenship Act only allows retention based on an assessment of all the relevant facts of attachment insofar as the application is submitted prior to the applicant turning 22.

Furthermore, the Tjebbes-judgment leaves certain doubts as to the actual content of the Dutch rules concerning retention and reacquisition of Dutch citizenship, and as such does not offer clear-cut criteria for assessing the compatibility of Danish rules on loss of citizenship with EU law.

Consequently, the Eastern High Court found that such a degree of doubt remains as to the compatibility of sect. 8, § 1 of the Danish Citizenship Act with the TFEU article 20 and article 7 of the EU Charter that the conditions for referral to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling are fulfilled, in spite of the Ministry of immigration and Integration’s arguments to the contrary.

The referral is significant since the assessment by the CJEU will potentially influence Danish legislation and practice concerning loss of citizenship, and could, depending on the outcome, even call for reassessment of previous cases in which an application for retention of Danish citizenship has been declined.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Planned reintroduction of temporary access to reacquisition of Danish citizenship

Dual citizenship has been permitted in Denmark since 1 September 2015.

The earlier limitations to dual citizenship has meant that a number of persons have lost their Danish citizenship as a result of acquiring citizenship in another country.

Those who have lost their Danish citizenship in this manner may soon have an opportunity to reacquire it.

A proposal for a bill intended to introduce a new 5 year  period for reacquisition of Danish citizenship, to replace the one, which lapsed on 31 August 2020, has been presented in Parliament. Read the proposal here (in Danish).

According to the proposal, the bill is scheduled to enter into force on July 1st 2021.

Before applying for reacquisition of your Danish citizenship, you are advised to make sure that the country in which you currently hold citizenship also allows dual citizenship.  

If you are born abroad and has not retained your Danish citizenship through residence or frequent visits prior to the age of 22, your situation is not covered by the bill concerning reacquisition of Danish citizenship.

We assist clients in reacquiring or retaining/confirming their Danish citizenship and can also help obtain the required documentation.    

[immigrationlawyersdken]

New restrictions on access to Danish citizenship

A new political agreement on citizenship has been adopted on 20 April 2021. 

The agreement restricts access to Danish citizenship by naturalization in a number of ways. The agreement is available here (in Danish).

Exclusion from citizenship in case of an unconditional or conditional prison sentence

Following the new agreement it will no longer be possible for applicants who have received an unconditional or conditional prison sentence to get citizenship. 

This restriction enters into force immediately meaning that applicants who have alrady been notified that they will be included in the upcoming naturalization bill (lov om indfødsrets meddelelse) will from the outset also be affected.

In some cases, for instance if the criminal sanction in question was previously subject to a quarentine period, which has now lapsed, it may be possible to have an application brought before the Parliamentary Naturalization Committee (Folketingets indfødsretsudvalg), with a possibility that the Board will grant dispensation. 

Longer quarentine periods in case of other criminal sanctions

The quarantine period for other sanctions, including fines above DKK 3000, will now be counted from  the time of the court decision or the time the fine was accepted rather than from the point in time when the offence was committed, as has so far been the case. This will result in longer quarantine periods

In case of repeated criminal offences, the quarentine period will be extended with the quarentine period for each individuel offence. Repetitive effect of multiple offences in terms of quarantine is no longer restricted to offences of a similar nature. 

The quarantine period for certain fines, including fines for social control and social fraud will be increased from 4,5 to 6 years.

More surprise questions in the citizenship test (Indfødsretsprøven af 2015)

In the future, the citizenship test (Indfødsretsprøven af 2015) will be extended with an additional 5 questions, which will revolve around Danish values. It will not be possible to prepare for the questions in advance by studying the teaching material for the test. 

The change will be implemented from the November 2021 test and will not affect those who are taking the test in June this year.

Longer residence residence requirement after obtaining permanent residence

Regular applicants will now be required to have resided in Denmark for at least 2 years after obtaining a permanent residence permit. For refugees and stateless applicants the period will be one year.

Introduction of a work requirement

It will now be a requirement that applicants must from the outset have been employed or self-employed full-time for a minimum of 3,5 years within the past 4 years prior to being included on a citizenship bill, and must still be working when the bill is presented in Parliament.

Further restrictions

The requirement that the applicant must not have public debt is expanded to include more types of debt.

The period during which the applicant must not have received public support is increased for the group of applicants who are eligible to apply with a passed Danish 2 rather than Danish 3 test. 

The fee for applications will be increased.

When are the new rules entering into force?

The barring of applicants with previous conditional and unconditional prison sentences will be immediately effective. This means that applicants who have received a letter that they are expected to be included on the upcoming naturalization bill to be presented in Parliament on 29 April may be affected by the restriction.

The other restrictions will be subject to a transitional period corresponding to the current processing time of 16 months.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

British citizens in Denmark after the end of the transition period

The transition period in the withdrawal agreement between the EU and Britain will end on 31 December 2020. Afterwards, UK citizens will no longer enjoy the right to freedom of movement under EU law.

If you are a UK citizen who obtained a residence permit in Denmark before 31 December 2020, you will maintain the rights you currently have under EU law and can continue to live, work or study in Denmark on the same conditions as now.  

However, the legal basis for your residence permit will change from being the EU rules on freedom of movement to being the provisions in the withdrawal agreement. Therefore, you must submit an application to the Agency for International Recruitment and Integration to change your residence status. The agency opens for applications on 1 January 2021 and the deadline for submissions is 31 December 2021.

This also applies to you if you have obtained a residence permit in Denmark as a family member of a UK citizen as well as if you have permanent residence under EU law.

UK citizens who have not taken up legal residence in Denmark and exercised their right to free movement before 31 December 2020 must apply for a residence permit as a third-country national under the Danish Aliens Act if they wish to take up residence in Denmark after 31 December 2020.

We assist clients in both change of status applications and new applications for residence permits. We can also help obtain the documentation needed for applications to succeed.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Final Call for Reacquisition of Danish Citizenship

Dual citizenship has been permitted in Denmark since 1 September 2015.

When dual citizenship was reintroduced, a transitional rule was established, allowing persons who have lost their Danish citizenship to reacquire it by submitting an application to the Ministry of Immigration and Integration.

The transition period ends on 31 August 2020.

If you are a former Danish citizen who has lost your Danish citizenship by applying for citizenship in another country, you can still reacquire your Danish citizenship if you submit your application before 31 August 2020.

If you are an Australian citizen by descent, born outside Australia, you should be aware that you may have lost your Danish citizenship if you applied for confirmation of your Australian citizenship prior to1 September 2015. You can read more about this situation here.

Before applying for reacquisition of your Danish citizenship, you are advised to make sure that the country in which you currently hold citizenship also allows dual citizenship. 

We assist clients in reacquiring their Danish citizenship and can also help obtain the documentation needed for applications to succeed. 

You can read more about reacquisition of Danish citizenship here (in Danish)

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Residents of Mjølnerparken Challenge the Ghetto Package in Court

Alongside the Open Society Justice Initiative and Almen Modstand we are assisting a number of residents of the Mjølner Parken estate in Copenhagen in a lawsuit against the Danish government with the purpose of establishing that the measures against the estate initiated on the basis of the so-called Ghetto Package are unlawful under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights.  

The case originates in the legislative package that was passed in the Danish Parliament on 22 November 2018 and which aims to limit housing areas fitting the ghetto definition formulated in the legislative package. This aim is to be achieved in part by reducing the common family housing in areas identified as tough ghettos to 40 percent by 2030. 

Mjølnerparken is a so-called tough ghetto, defined as an area that has met the ghetto criteria for four years. On May 14, 2019, the Board of the housing association for Mjølnerparken passed a development plan to sell two blocks of housing, in an endeavour to meet the aims defined by the government. The plan will affect 200 flats, causing a large number of residents to lose their home. On June 20, 2019, the development plan was approved by the municipality of Copenhagen. On September 10, 2019, the development plan was approved by the Ministry of Transport and Housing.

To be defined as a ghetto, at least 50 percent of an area’s residents must be “non-Western” immigrants or descendants. The plaintiffs are therefore seeking confirmation in court that the state-approved plan breaches the Danish ethnic equality act, EU law and Denmark’s obligations under international law.   The plaintiffs argue that the development plan violates their rights to equality, respect for home, property, and freedom to choose their own residence. The issue at the heart of the lawsuit is that the residents of Mjølnerparken are treated less favourably than residents of comparable areas with similar socio-economic traits, which are not defined as ghettos. According to EU law and international legal instruments such as the European Convention of Human Rights any difference in treatment must pursue legitimate aims and be necessary to fulfil a pressing need in society. 

The difference in treatment between designated ghetto areas and other areas is primarily based on the ”non-western” background of the residents. This criterion is intrinsically connected to their racial, ethnic and national origin and thus constitutes discrimination, which interferes with the fundamental rights of the residents.

You can read more about the case on the Open Society Justice Initiative website:

Press Release

Press Conference (Audio only)

Q&A with Mjølnerparken resident, Majken Fjelle

Litigation page

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Supreme Court Judgment Overrules 15 Years of Erroneous Practice for Recovery on the Basis of  Guarantees

Today, the Supreme Court has ruled in a case where we have assisted a woman who had been requested by a municipality to refund social aid paid to her former mother-in-law.

The Supreme Court upheld our client’s case, the focal point of which was the temporal scope of the guarantee statements she had signed in 1999 and 2003 respectively, whereby she had undertaken to subsidize her then mother in law, who was granted a residence permit in Denmark in 1999 based on family reunification.

In 2016, our client, who separated from her husband in 2007, was contacted by the municipality of her former mother-in-law and requested to refund social aid paid to the latter between 2013 and 2016.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously states that the guarantees lapsed when the mother-in-law was granted permanent residence status in 2004, since a permanent residence permit cannot be withdrawn with reference to a guarantor not fulfilling a duty of subsidization:

”If a guarantee statement should nonetheless remain effective in this situation, it could lead to a comprehensive and lengthy duty of subsidization for the guarantor, including in situations where the relationship between the guarantor and the family reunified foreigner has seized to exist.”

A central question in the case was whether the amendment to the Immigration Act in 2002, which limits the scope of guarantee statements to the point where the family reunified person is granted a permanent right of residence, also applies to family reunifications granted prior to the entry into force of the amendment. 

According to the Supreme Court this is the case, since the amendment in 2002 specifies rather than alters the extent of the subsidization duty of the guarantor, and since the imposition of an unlimited financial guarantee would, according to the Supreme Court, need to be stated explicitly in the Immigration Act in order to be valid.

Today’s ruling overrides the previous rulings in the case by the District Court of Copenhagen and the Eastern High Court, as well as 15 years of erroneous administrative practice for recovery on the basis of guarantees. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to be relevant to a large number of other cases where municipalities have continuously made claims against guarantors.

If you find yourself in a similar position where you have been met with a claim for repayment of financial aid paid to a family reunified parent or other relative, we suggest you get in touch with us to hear what we can do for you.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

The Danish Immigration Service and SIRI will remain closed for visitors until and including 13 April

At a press conference on 23 March, the Danish Government announced that the COVID-19 preventive measures are extended until and including 13 April.  

This means that the Danish Immigration Service's Citizen Service Center and the departments of SIRI will remain closed for visitors.           

You can read about the consequences of the closure on nyidanmark.dk/corona and in our post from 12 March, below.

[immigrationlawyersdken]

The Danish Immigration Service’ Citizen Service is closed for visitors until and including 27 March

The Danish Immigration Service has temporarily closed its Citizen Service from Thursday 12 March until Friday 27 March (both days included). This follows the Danish Government’s introduction of preventive measures due to the outbreak of Covid-19 (Coronavirus).

Updated 23 March

You can read about the procedures of the Danish Immigration Service until and including 27 March here

The Immigration Service can still be contacted by phone

The Immigration Service has informed us by phone of the procedure for the next 14 days  in the following situations:

Time limits for departure

If you have been given a date by which you need to leave Denmark, you must comply with the deadline insofar as it is possible.

If you are unable to leave before the time limit due to entry bans at your destination or cancellation of flights, the Immigration Service will disregard the time limit until travel has again become possible. It is important that you inform the Immigration Service if you are unable to leave Denmark before the deadline. You must do so through the contact form on New to Denmark. 

Visa expiry

If you are staying in Denmark on a visa, you must still leave Denmark before your visa expires insofar as it is possible.

If you are unable to leave before the visa expires due to entry bans at your destination or cancellation of flights, you must submit an application for extension of your visa before it expires. Under normal circumstances the application must be submitted in person, but during the current closure of the Danish Immigration Service’ Citizen Service, it can be submitted through the contact form on New to Denmark. 

Note that the Danish Immigration Service cannot process the applications for visa extension while the preventive measures are still in place, as processing requires access to the passport of the applicant. 

Re-entry permit  

While the Danish Immigration Service’ Citizen Service is closed, it is only possible to apply for a re-entry permit in Denmark if the application is submitted at a police station with immigration service. It is not currently known whether any will remain open. 

Otherwise a re-entry permit can only be obtained at a Danish representation abroad.  

Filing an application for residence permit

Applications for residence permits can be submitted through the contact form on New to Denmark. 

Be aware that it may take up to 30 days from submission of the application until it is registered in the Danish Immigration Service’s system.

If an application is submitted through the contact form, recording of biometric data can take place after the  Danish Immigration Service’ Citizen Service has reopened, even if the reopening date is more than 14 days after the application has been filed.

Recording of Biometric data

It is currently not possible to have biometric data recorded at the Danish Immigration Service nor at the police stations.

Financial guarantee for applicants for family reunification

If you have been notified that you will need to post collateral in the form of a financial guarantee in relation to an application for family reunification, you should still do so insofar as possible.  However, since the COVID-19 preventive measures might cause delay in the processing of the guarantee by the relevant municipality, the Danish Immigration Service has suspended deadlines for financial guarantees for the time being.    

If you are uncertain about the consequences of the COVID-19 preventive measures for your right to stay in Denmark, we recommend that you contact us to hear what we can do for you.    

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Automatic Presumption of Forced Marriage Violates Denmark’s International Obligations

On 25 July 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) adopted its views in a case where we have assisted clients in disputing a refusal of family reunification.  

The Human Rights Committee concludes that the refusal of family reunification as well as the process leading up to the decision, violated the plaintiff���s right to family life protected in articles 17 and 23 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The UNHRC states that the assessment of whether a marriage is forced must not rely on automatic and stereotyped criteria, and that both parties should be heard before a decision is made. The UNHRC thus overrules the practice of the Immigration Appeals Board, in relation to the Immigration Act section 9(11) (previously 9(8)), according to which a marriage between close relatives is presumed to be involuntary.

The case originates in the refusal by the Immigration Service to grant family reunification to a Somali citizen and her husband, a Danish citizen born in Somalia. The couple who married in Kenya in June 2012 were first refused family reunification in early 2013. The decision was based on the presumption that the marriage was not entered into voluntarily due to the couple being first cousins and having not lived together prior to and following the wedding.

The couple applied for family reunification again later the same year after the birth of their first child, but their application was once again refused. They then appealed to the Immigration Appeals Board. Prior to deciding the case, the Appeals Board conducted a hearing where only the male plaintiff was given an opportunity to present his views and no witnesses were heard. In February 2014 the Board upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.

The UNHRC points out that the Danish immigration authorities placed the burden of proof that the marriage was not forced on the plaintiffs, while at the same time giving them no real opportunity of lifting that burden. The UNHRC stresses that the female plaintiff was not heard, and that the immigration authorities automatically let the presumption that the marriage was forced outweigh the couple’s own explanations and the fact that they have a child  together. 

The UNHRC ultimately concludes that the relationship between the plaintiffs that at the time of the decision had lasted for 7 years constitutes family life in spite of the couple having not cohabited before and after the wedding. By not taking into account the personal situation and cultural context of the couple, the Danish immigration authorities violated their right to family life. 

If you have been refused family reunification in a similar situation, we recommend that you get in touch with us to hear what we can do for you.  

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Temporary opportunity to avoid integration assessment and time limit when applying for family reunification with children

A new bill amending the rules on family reunification with children is currently in consultation. The bill is particularly relevant to children who has previously been denied residence in Denmark with reference to the integration assessment in the Immigration Act § 9 (20) and children who never applied due to failure to comply with the integration requirements.

If the bill is passed according to schedule, it will take effect on 1 January 2020. The bill replaces the current integration assessment with a requirement that applications for family reunification must take place within 3 months of the date when the parent residing in Denmark becomes eligible to apply for family reunification. 

The bill also introduces a transitional provision providing an opportunity for residence for children who were previously denied residence with reference to the current § 9 (20) and children who never applied because they did not meet the requirements of the rule.  

According to the transitional provision, children who were refused family reunification between 10 June 2016 and 1 January  2020 with reference to the integration assessment in § 9 (20) can obtain residence if a new application is submitted within 3 months of 1 January 2020.

The bill also offers an opportunity for children who never previously applied for family reunification to obtain residence without undergoing an integration assessment and without observing the 3 months time limit, if an application has been submitted and is not finalized when the bill takes effect on 1. January 2020. 

This is particularly relevant in relation to children who for instance are more than 8 years old and whose resident parents were granted a residence permit prior to 10 June 2016.

Considering the wording of the bill, we recommend that you get in touch with us if you are in doubt about whether and when to apply for family reunification with your child. 

[immigrationlawyersdken]

Apply for reacquisition of your Danish citizenship before the deadline

Dual citizenship has been permitted in Denmark since 1 September 2015.

When dual citizenship was reintroduced, a transitional rule was established, allowing persons who have lost their Danish citizenship to reacquire it by submitting an application to the Ministry of Immigration and Integration.

The transition period ends on 31 August 2020

If you are a former Danish citizen who has lost your Danish citizenship by applying for citizenship in another country, you can still reacquire your Danish citizenship if you submit your application before 31 August 2020.

Before applying for reacquisition of your Danish citizenship, you should however make sure that the country in which you currently hold citizenship also allows dual citizenship. 

We assist clients in reacquiring their Danish citizenship and can also help obtain the documentation needed for applications to succeed. 

You can read more about reacquisition of Danish citizenship here (in Danish) 

[immigrationlawyersdken]

UN Disability Committee Overrules Supreme Court in Case Concerning Spousal Reunification

On 31 August 2018, The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) delivered its ruling in a case where we are assisting clients in a trial concerning refusal of spousal reunification.

In the ruling CRPD states that the Danish immigration authorities violated the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (The Disability Convention) when a Danish citizen, who was suffering from a disability, was denied spousal reunification in Denmark with his Ukrainian spouse.

Spousal reunification was denied on the grounds that the Danish spouse had received social benefits within a 3-year period prior to the application for family reunification, thereby failing to fulfil the requirement of self-support in section 9 (5) of the Danish Alien Act.

The case was brought before the Eastern High Court, which in its decision of 22 December 2015 found that the refusal to grant the couple spousal reunification represented a violation of the Disability Convention. On appeal, in a decision of 22 December 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the Danish spouse had failed to demonstrate that he did not have a reasonable prospect of satisfying the requirement of self-support in section 9 (5) and was therefore in a position comparable to persons without a disability who had received social benefits.  

CRPD did not agree with the Supreme Court on this interpretation of the Disability Convention. The Committee stated that the refusal to grant spousal reunification was based on a criterion, which subjected the Danish spouse to indirect discrimination as a result of his disability. As such the decision to deny spousal reunification represented a violation of both the general prohibition of disability-based discrimination in article 5 and the prohibition of discrimination in matters concerning family life in article 23.

We believe that the ruling from CRPD obliges the Danish immigration authorities to change their practice in relation to applicants with disabilities, and that it could constitute a basis for the reconsideration of similar cases.

Should you require assistance in a similar case, we suggest you get in touch with us.