Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)200

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Amrollahi against Denmark

(Application No. 56811/00, judgment of 11 July 2002, final on 11 October 2002)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life on account of an expulsion order imposed against him in 1997 (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)200

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Amrollahi against Denmark

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life on account of an expulsion order issued against him in 1997 which became final in 2000.

The applicant, an Iranian national, moved lawfully to Denmark in 1989 and married a Danish national. They have three children, all of Danish nationality, one of which is from an earlier relationship of the applicant’s wife. In 1997, the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment followed by permanent expulsion from Denmark.

The European Court considered that, given the applicant’s significant family ties with Denmark and the fact that he had had no contact with his Iranian family since 1987, and taking into account that it was a practical impossibility for the applicant and his family to set up home elsewhere than in Denmark, the applicant’s expulsion would have the effect of separating the family, and would thus be disproportionate to the aims pursued. Therefore, the Court concluded that the implementation of the expulsion order would constitute a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

I.	Individual measures

The European Court awarded no just satisfaction in the absence of a claim by the applicant.

Following the Court’s judgment, on the initiative by the prosecution, the Western High Court (Vestre Landsret), on 13/09/2002, revoked the decision relating to the applicant’s expulsion.

II.	General measures

The Danish authorities consider that the violation constituted a single incident resulting from the particular circumstances of the case. Given the direct effect of the Convention and the European Court’s case-law in Denmark, the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment should prevent similar violations, since the Court found the expulsion order to be in accordance with the law and pursuing a legitimate aim but disproportionate in this very specific case.

For this purpose, the judgment was published in the periodical EU-ret og Menneskeret (No. 5, 2002, pp. 232‑235) and was disseminated to the relevant authorities.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Denmark has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.