Hop til indhold
Supreme Court of Denmark

No stay of execution pending action concerning residence permit 
02-12-2015 

Case no. 219/2015
 

Order made on 2 December 2015


A
vs.
The Immigration Appeals Board


No stay of execution granted pending Moroccan citizen's action against the Immigration Appeals Board

A, the mother of a four-year-old daughter who lived with her father in Denmark, had applied for family reunification on the grounds of the daughter, but her application had been denied by all administrative authorities. The refusal was based on section 9c(1) of the Danish Aliens Act.

The Immigration Appeals Board's decision was brought before the courts and referred to the High Court in the first instance, cf. section 226(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. A requested that a stay of execution of the Immigration Appeals Board's decision be granted pending the outcome of the action before the High Court.

A was a Moroccan citizen and did not have a residence permit in Denmark. The father of the daughter was also a Moroccan citizen and had been granted a residence permit in Denmark. A and the father of the daughter married in Spain in 2008, and A had been granted a residence permit in Spain. The couple had stayed in Denmark since 2010, and their daughter was born in February 2011. The couple separated in 2013 and divorced in 2014.

A was convicted of kidnapping her daughter. As a result of this, A had lost custody of her daughter, but was entitled to supervised contact with her daughter for 90 minutes every two weeks.

Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court found that A's interest in staying in Denmark pending the High Court's judgment in the case did not outweigh the Immigration Appeals Board's clear interest in not suspending the return of A further, cf. in this connection also article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention on the right to respect for family life.

On these grounds the Supreme Court Found that there was no basis for exceptionally granting a stay of execution pending the action before the High Court.

The High Court's ruling was thus affirmed.

To the top Last modified: 08-12-2015 
supremecourtseperatorPrins Jørgens Gård 13 seperator1218 København K seperatorTelefon: 33632750seperatorEmail: post@hoejesteret.dk