CASE OF BIAO v. DENMARK
Hearing: Biao v. Denmark (no. 38590/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-04-01 00:00:00)
Application no.: 38590/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-03-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0325JUD003859010
Respondent state: DNK
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;14;14+8
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano
Represented by: PETERSEN S.
Issue: Section 9, Subsection 7, Aliens Act, 1 January 2004 ; Act No. 1204, 27 December 2003 ; Preparatory works to Act No. 1204, 27 December 2003 ; Act No. 365, 6 June 2002 ;  Preparatory works to Act No. 365, 6 June 2002
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94;Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999;Andrey Sheabashov v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999;Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, §§ 88 89, 14 February 2012;Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011;Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VI;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.  13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;Butt v. Norway, no. 47017/09, § 70, 4 December 2012;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 61 and 70, ECHR 2010;Clift v. the United Kingdom, no.7205/07, §§ 56-58, 13 July 2010;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007;Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, § 64, 31 July 2008;Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 72, Series A no. 22;Gül v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I;Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012;Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999;Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011;Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998;Nunez v. Norway, no. 55597/09, §§ 66-70, 28 June 2011;Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, § 53, 14 June 2011;Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 5335/05, 18 September 2007;Priya v. Denmark (dec.), no. 13549/03, 6 July 2006;Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006 I;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, 12 November 2013;Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005 X;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010
External sources: Article 5 § 2, Council of Europe, European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, ETS No. 166;Letter of 15 October 2004 Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights to the Danish Government

Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Separate opinion: TRUE