Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/case-law/denmark-refugee-appeals-board%E2%80%99s-decision-1-december-2017-0
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:15:49+00:00

Document:
The complainant, a Sunni Muslim from Mogadishu, Somalia, born in 1973, entered Denmark in July 1992 and applied for refugee status. In September 1992 he was granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) by the Danish Immigration Service. In September 1997 he was granted indefinite residence permit. In July 2015 the Danish Immigration Service decided that his subsidiary protection status under the Danish Aliens Act. Art. 7 (2) had lapsed according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (1) and (4). Subsequently, a complaint was lodged. It appears from the Central Register of Persons that the complainant had been registered as disappeared from 2011 to 2015. The complainant did not appear before the Refugee Appeals Board.
The Board decided that the complainant did not have a lawful excuse and proceeded with his case.
The complainant had informed that he had not been outside the country and that he had stayed with his aunt and a friend. However, he had not been able to produce documentation for his whereabouts and he denied giving consent to have his fingerprints taken and have foreign authorities, homeless hostels or his friend be contacted. Based on this the Board established that the complainant had stayed outside Denmark for more than 12 consecutive months and therefore the condition in the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (1) had been fulfilled.
As the complainant’s subsidiary protection status was granted under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (4) determines that the subsidiary protection status does not lapse until the alien of his own free will has settled in his country of origin or has obtained protection in a third country. It is the responsibility of the authorities to ensure that the conditions are fulfilled. Due to lack of information it has not been possible to assess whether the complainant voluntarily had resided in Somalia or obtained protection in a third country. Consequently, the Board could not consider that the conditions in the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (4) had been fulfilled. That the complainant had not given concrete and adequate information cf. the Danish Aliens Act Art. 40 could not lead to another decision.
The applicant was granted continued subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).

References: Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 17
 Art. 17
 Art. 7
 Art. 17
 Art. 7
 Art. 40
 Art. 7