H.P. v Denmark

Parties (including notable third parties)

H.P (Applicant); Denmark (Respondent)

---

Summary of Facts

The Applicant, who was born in Iran, was imprisoned and tortured before fleeing with his family to Turkey in 1987. The Applicant was granted recognition as refugees by UNHCR on the condition that they reject any right to return to Iran.

In 1989, the Applicant and his family were resettled in Denmark and obtained permanent residence. Before the Danish Immigration Service, the Applicant maintained that he was an Iranian national, whereas before the Court he claimed that he was stateless.

Despite applying for Danish nationality multiple times in the period between 1998 - 2009, the Applicant was unsuccessful. This was because, due to the psychological injuries stemming from his torture in Iran, the Applicant struggled to learn Danish sufficiently well to pass the language test required for naturalization. The Applicant was not aware of available exemptions from language requirements or rely on his health problems as a reason for his difficulties passing the Danish language test.

On his 8^th application for naturalisation, the Applicant argued that the historical 1999 Circular should have been applied in his case so that the Applicant only had to pass the language test at the level of “general test 1”. The Applicant also submitted that the relevant exemptions were wrongly never considered or applied.

The Ministry of Justice referred the Applicant’s case to the Parliamentary Naturalisation Committee, which refused the application in March 2009. The Applicant then lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights in October 2009, submitting medical evidence of his mental health condition.

The Court communicated the case to the Danish Government in 2012, prompting the Ministry of Justice to reopen his citizenship application and request updated medical documentation.

The Applicant faced financial difficulties in obtaining further medical certificates, and the proceedings before the Court were stayed pending the domestic process.

In 2013, a new Circular allowed for exemptions from the citizenship test in cases of long-term disability. The Applicant submitted updated medical evidence confirming his permanent inability to meet the language requirement.

After further exchanges and delays, the Parliamentary Naturalisation Committee granted him dispensation from the usual requirements for naturalization in January 2014, and he was granted Danish citizenship by Act of Parliament in July 2014.

---

Legal Arguments

Legal arguments by the Applicant

The Applicant argued that the Danish authorities’ refusal to grant him Danish citizenship was arbitrary and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).

The Applicant also claimed, under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, that the authorities failed to treat him differently as a vulnerable person with a learning disability resulting from torture, and that there was a violation of Article 13, contending that there was no adversarial process to challenge the refusal of citizenship.

The Applicant disputed that the matter was resolved under Article 37(1)(b) of the Convention on the basis that the refusal to grant him citizenship for more than 16 years had had an impact on his private life, where he was perpetually stateless. This included that he was unable to obtain a Danish passport, denied the right to vote on five separate occasions, was deprived of his right to personal autonomy and to form the political and legal bonds that connect him to Denmark, unable to share the same legal status as his family in Denmark, who had obtained Danish nationality, as well as his right to dignity and to personal development.

Legal arguments by the Respondent

The Government requested that the Court strike out the case under Article 37 (1)(b) of the ECHR since the matter had been resolved as the Applicant was granted Danish nationality in June 2014. The Government also argued that the Applicant failed to submit the necessary documents to examine his case despite requests by the Ministry of Justice.

Outcome

Article 8

The Court noted that Article 8 does not guarantee a right to acquire a particular nationality or citizenship, but acknowledged that an arbitrary denial of citizenship could, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 due to its impact on private life.

• ‘Article 8 of the Convention does not guarantee a right to acquire a particular nationality or citizenship. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual.’ (paragraph 64)

Articles 8, 13 and 14

The Court found that, as a result of the granting of Danish citizenship to the Applicant, the circumstances complained of directly by the Applicant no longer held. Therefore, the remaining question was whether the effects of the possible violation of the Convention in refusing to grant Danish citizenship in 2009 had been redressed by the grant of Danish citizenship

The Court determined that the grant of Danish citizenship was an adequate and sufficient remedy in relation to the Applicant’s complaints under Arts 8, 13 and 14.

• ‘Consequently in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the granting of Danish citizenship to the Applicant constitutes an adequate and sufficient remedying of his complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention’ (paragraph 81)

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	European Convention on Human Rights	Arts 8, 13, 14, 37
Domestic	Danish Constitution	Art 44
Domestic	Act No. 422 of 7 June 2004	Sections 6(1), 12(5)

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

No commentary available.