On the brink of the law: The government is betting on changing the European Court of Human Rights' practices for deporting foreign criminals.
According to DR, a new Danish government proposal to tighten rules for deporting foreigners convicted of serious crimes has sparked widespread political and legal controversy, with government experts and academics explicitly warning that it conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights, while the government believes that the European Court of Human Rights will change its existing practices.
Background of the government proposal
The Danish government has proposed a plan to deport foreigners convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to at least one year in prison, regardless of their connection to Denmark. The proposal would also apply to foreign residents of Denmark who do not hold citizenship in another EU country. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen alluded to this policy in her New Year's address.
The government proposal reflects a sharp divide between the political will to tighten deportation policies and Denmark's international legal obligations. While the government is banking on a potential shift in the practices of the European Court of Human Rights, legal experts warn of legal and political risks that could put Denmark on a direct collision course with the international human rights system.
Government expects judicial change
According to DR, Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard explained that the government submitted the proposal despite being aware of its potential conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, because it anticipates that the European Court of Human Rights will change its current practices. Hummelgaard stated that the government bases this expectation on a declaration signed by Denmark, Italy, and 27 other Council of Europe member states on December 10, calling for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Justice Minister added: We have a very clear expectation that this declaration will lead to a change in the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
Legal warnings from within the government
Government experts within the Ministry of Justice themselves confirmed, according to a fact sheet prepared on the proposal, that it is not entirely consistent with current Danish court precedent or with the practices of the European Court of Human Rights in deportation cases. The fact sheet warned of considerable uncertainty regarding whether the Court would change its approach, noting that the proposal carries a significant risk of Denmark being found to have violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 8 addresses the right to respect for private and family life, a fundamental right that is central to deportation cases.
Sharp academic criticism
Frederik Waage, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Southern Denmark, said the proposal was both striking and dangerous. Waage stated that Denmark had never before had a prime minister so openly declared her willingness to violate the European Convention on Human Rights. He explained that the joint declaration on which the government is basing its position has no real legal weight, especially since major European countries such as Germany, France, and Spain have not signed it.
The expert added that the declaration would not affect the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, nor would it have any impact within Danish courts. He emphasized that the main problem would fall on Danish judges if a law were passed that conflicted with Denmark's international obligations, placing them in a very difficult legal position.
A political signal or an actual change?
According to DR, the expert believes the proposal does not violate the Danish constitution and can be passed legislatively, but it could open the door to compensation claims against the state if Denmark loses cases before the European Court of Human Rights. He considered the most dangerous aspect of the proposal to be its political signal, as it sends the message that Denmark is prepared to breach an international agreement to which it voluntarily committed.
Positions of political parties
The timing of the proposal has raised questions within the Danish parliament, particularly with the upcoming 2026 general elections. Morten Messerschmidt, leader of the Danish People's Party, stated that the government only put forward the proposal because it was trailing in the polls. He added that his party would have expected the proposal to be introduced earlier if the government were serious about it, but nevertheless announced his party's support for the proposal.
In contrast, Inger Støjberg, leader of the Denmark Democrats party, described the proposal as a desperate attempt ahead of the elections, noting that the government often makes big promises that end up with limited results.
The Socialist People's Party (SF), through its political spokesperson Signe Munk, announced that it is waiting to see the final details, stressing its refusal to abandon international agreements despite acknowledging the existence of a problem concerning foreigners convicted of serious crimes who cannot be deported at present.
Rejection by the Alternative Party
According to the source, Helene Brydensholdt, the Alternative party's spokesperson on immigration, announced her party's rejection of the proposal, describing the move as a very poor symbolic gesture. She emphasized that respect for human rights is more important than ever, and that Denmark must send a clear message that it protects these rights and will not abandon them.
Lack of clear figures
The DR website stated that it tried to get an answer from the government regarding the number of people who might actually be affected by the proposal if it were approved, but it was unable to obtain any official figures or estimates.
