CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 24 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDAF6EE49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4667C756 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s72EDD5F1 { width:58.74pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFED97BC8 { width:62.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC31C7A4B { width:79.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8857786F { width:177.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8CF1A046 { width:209.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7876111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sAF613354 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:line-through } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD083B52B { width:1.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB7A3199A { width:205.1pt; display:inline-block } .s34F4D0F6 { width:10.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6E5A3B2E { width:220.77pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sC400C4B4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA89582B { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0069d6 } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       GRAND CHAMBER               CASE OF BIAO v. DENMARK   (Application no. 38590/10)                   JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   24 May 2016         This judgment is final.   In the case of Biao v. Denmark, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Işıl Karakaş, President ,   Dean Spielmann,   Josep Casadevall,   Mark Villiger,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ján Šikuta,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   André Potocki,   Helena Jäderblom,   Paul Mahoney,   Ksenija Turković,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges ,   and Lawrence Early, Jurisconsult , Having deliberated in private on 1 April 2015 and 22 February 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 38590/10) against the Kingdom of Denmark lodged with the Court on 12 July 2010 under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Ousmane Biao (“the first applicant”), a Danish national, and his wife Ms Asia Adamo Biao (“the second applicant”), a Ghanaian national. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr S. Petersen, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen. The Danish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Bering Liisberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and their co-Agent, Ms N. Holst-Christensen, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants alleged that the refusal by the Danish authorities to grant them family reunion in Denmark was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14. 4.     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 25 March 2014 a Chamber composed of Guido Raimondi, President, Peer Lorenzen, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, delivered its judgment. It declared the application admissible and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention and, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8. A concurring opinion by Judges Raimondi and Spano and a dissenting opinion by Judges Sajó, Vučinić and Kūris were annexed to the judgment. 5.     On 23 June 2014 the applicants requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 8 September 2014. 6.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. At the final deliberations, Helena Jäderblom and Iulia Antoanella Motoc, substitute judges, replaced Elisabeth Steiner and Päivi Hirvelä, who were unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 24 § 3). 7.     The applicants and the Government each filed further observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 8.     In addition, third-party comments were received from the Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe, which had been granted leave by the President of the Grand Chamber to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). 9.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 1 April 2015 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   J. Bering Liisberg , Ministry of Foreign Affairs,   Agent , Ms   N. Holst-Christensen , Ministry of Justice,   Co-Agent , Mr   K. Lunding , Ministry of Justice, Mr   A. Herping Nielsen , Ministry of Justice, Mr   M. Bang , Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms   M.A. Sander Holm , Ministry of Justice,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicants Mr   S . Petersen , lawyer,   Counsel , Mr   N.-E. Hansen , Mr   H.K. Nielsen ,   Advisers.   The Court heard addresses by Mr Bering Liisberg and Mr Petersen as well as their replies to questions from judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.     The applicants were born, respectively, in 1971 in Togo and in 1979 in Ghana. They live in Malmö, Sweden. 11.     The first applicant lived in Togo until the age of six and again briefly from the age of 21 to 22. From the age of six to 21 he lived in Ghana with his uncle. He attended school there for ten years and speaks the local language. On 18 July 1993, when he was 22 years old, he entered Denmark and requested asylum, which was refused by a final decision of 8 March 1995. 12.     In the meantime, on 7 November 1994, he had married a Danish national. Having regard to his marriage, on 1 March 1996, by virtue of former section 9(1)(ii) of the Aliens Act ( Udlændingeloven ), he was granted a residence permit, which became permanent on 23 September 1997. 13.     On 25 September 1998 the first applicant and his Danish wife divorced. 14.     On 22 April 2002 the first applicant acquired Danish citizenship. At the relevant time he met the requirements set out in the relevant circular relating to the length of his period of residence (at least nine years), age, general conduct, arrears owed to public funds and language proficiency. 15.     On 22 February 2003 the first applicant married the second applicant in Ghana. He had met her during one of four visits to Ghana made in the five years prior to their marriage. 16.     On 28 February 2003, at the Danish Embassy in Accra, Ghana, the second applicant requested a residence permit for Denmark with reference to her marriage to the first applicant. At that time she was 24 years old. She stated that she had never visited Denmark, and that her parents lived in Ghana. On the application form, the first applicant submitted that he had not received any education in Denmark, but had participated in various language courses and short-term courses concerning service, customer care, industrial cleaning, hygiene and working methods. He had been working in a slaughterhouse since 15 February 1999. He had no close family in Denmark. He spoke and wrote Danish. The spouses had come to know each other in Ghana and they communicated between themselves in the Hausa and Twi languages. 17.     At the relevant time, under section 9(7) of the Aliens Act family reunion could be granted only if both spouses were over 24 years of age and their aggregate ties to Denmark were stronger than the spouses’ attachment to any other country (the so-called “attachment requirement”). 18.     On 1 July 2003 the Aliens Authority ( Udlændingestyrelsen ) refused the residence-permit request because it found that it could not be established that the spouses’ aggregate ties to Denmark were stronger than their aggregate ties to Ghana. 19.     In July or August 2003 the second applicant entered Denmark on a tourist visa. 20.     On 28 August 2003 she appealed against the Aliens Authority’s decision of 1 July 2003 to the then Ministry for Refugees, Immigration and Integration ( Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere og Integration ). The appeal did not have suspensive effect. 21.     On 15 November 2003 the applicants moved to Malmö, Sweden, which since 1 July 2000 has been connected to Copenhagen in Denmark by a 16 km bridge ( Øresundsforbindelsen ). 22.     By Law no. 1204 of 27 December 2003, section 9(7) of the Aliens Act was amended so that the attachment requirement was lifted for persons who had held Danish citizenship for at least twenty-eight years (the so-called “28-year rule” – 28-års reglen ). Persons born or having arrived in Denmark as small children could also be exempted from the attachment requirement, provided they had resided lawfully there for twenty-eight years. 23.     On 6 May 2004 the applicants had a son. He was born in Sweden but is a Danish national by virtue of his father’s nationality. 24.     On 27 August 2004 the Ministry for Refugees, Immigration and Integration upheld the decision by the Aliens Authority of 1 July 2003 to refuse to grant the second applicant a residence permit. It pointed out that in practice, the residing person was required to have stayed in Denmark for approximately twelve years, provided that an effort had been made to integrate. In the case before it, it found that the applicants’ aggregate ties to Denmark were not stronger than their ties to Ghana and that the family could settle in Ghana, as that would only require that the first applicant obtain employment there. In its assessment, it noted that the first applicant had entered Denmark in July 1993 and had been a Danish national since 22   April 2002. He had ties with Ghana, where he had been raised and had attended school. He had visited the country four times in the past six years. The second applicant had always lived in Ghana and had family there. 25.     On 18 July 2006, before the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( Østre Landsret ), the applicants instituted proceedings against the Ministry for Refugees, Immigration and Integration and relied on Article 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14, together with Article   5 § 2 of the European Convention on Nationality. They submitted, among other things, that it amounted to indirect discrimination against them when applying for family reunion that persons who were born Danish citizens were exempt from the attachment requirement altogether, whereas persons who had acquired Danish citizenship at a later point in life had to comply with the 28-year rule before being exempted from the attachment requirement. In the present case that would entail that the first applicant could not be exempted from the attachment requirement until 2030, after twenty-eight years of Danish citizenship, and thus after reaching the age of   59. 26.     In a judgment of 25 September 2007, the High Court of Eastern Denmark unanimously found that the refusal to grant the applicants family reunion with reference to the 28-year rule and the attachment requirement did not contravene the Articles of the Convention or of the European Convention on Nationality relied upon. It stated as follows. “[T]he facts given in the decisions of the immigration authorities in the case are found not to be in dispute. Accordingly, [the second applicant] who is a Ghanaian national, was thus 24 years old when she applied for a residence permit on 28 February 2003, and she had no ties with Denmark other than her recent marriage to [the first applicant]. [The second applicant] had always lived in Ghana and had family there. [The first applicant] had some ties with Ghana, where he had lived with his uncle while attending school in Ghana for ten years. He entered Denmark in 1993 at the age of 22 and became a Danish national on 22 April 2002. [The applicants] married in Ghana on 22   February   2003 and have lived in Sweden since 15 November 2003 with their child, born on 6 May 2004. [The first applicant] has told the High Court that the family can settle lawfully in Ghana if he obtains paid employment in that country. It appears from a Supreme Court judgment of 13 April 2005, reproduced on page   2086 of the Danish Weekly Law Reports [ Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen ] for 2005, that Article 8 of the Convention does not impose on the Contracting States any general obligation to respect immigrants’ choices as to the country of their residence in connection with marriage, or otherwise to authorise family reunion. In view of the information on [the applicants’] situation and their ties with Ghana, the High Court accordingly finds no basis for setting aside the Respondent’s decision establishing that [the applicants’] aggregate ties with Ghana were stronger than their aggregate ties with Denmark and that [the applicants] therefore did not meet the attachment requirement set out in section 9(7) of the Aliens Act. In this connection, the High Court finds that the refusal did not bar [the applicants] from exercising their right to family life in Ghana or in a country other than Denmark. The fact that [the first applicant] is able to reside in Ghana only if he obtains paid employment there is found not to lead to any other assessment. Accordingly, the High Court holds that the decision of the Ministry did not constitute a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Although the High Court has held that Article 8 of the Convention has not been breached in this case, it has to consider [the applicants’] claim that, within the substantive area otherwise protected by Article 8, the decision of the Ministry constituted a breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8. The High Court initially observes that [the first applicant] had been residing in Denmark for eleven years when the Ministry issued its decision. Although he acquired Danish nationality in 2002, nine years after entering Denmark, he did not meet the twenty-eight ‑ year nationality requirement applicable to all Danish nationals pursuant to section 9(7) of the Aliens Act, irrespective of whether they are of foreign or Danish extraction. Nor did he have a comparable attachment to Denmark to that which would be gained in twenty-eight years which will generally lead to an exemption from the attachment requirement according to the preparatory work of the 2003 statutory amendment. The 28-year rule is a generally worded relaxation of the attachment requirement based on an objective criterion. In practice, however, the rule may imply that a Danish national of foreign extraction will only meet the 28-year rule later in life than would be the case for a Danish national of Danish extraction. When applied, the rule may therefore imply an indirect discrimination. According to the relevant Explanatory Report, Article 5 of the European Convention on Nationality must be taken to mean that Article 5 § 1 concerns the conditions for acquiring nationality while Article 5 § 2 concerns the principle of non-discrimination. According to the report, it is not a mandatory rule that the Contracting States are obliged to observe in all situations. Against that background, Article 5 is considered to offer protection against discrimination to an extent that goes no further than the protection against discrimination offered by Article 14 of the Convention. The assessment of whether the refusal of the Ministry implied discrimination amounting to a breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 is accordingly considered to depend on whether the difference in treatment which occurred as a consequence of the attachment requirement in spite of nationality can be considered objectively justified and proportionate. According to the preparatory work of the Act, the overall aim of the attachment requirement, which is a requirement of lasting and strong links to Denmark, is to regulate spousal reunion in Denmark in such a manner as to ensure the best possible integration of immigrants in Denmark, an aim which must in itself be considered objective. In the view of the High Court, any difference in treatment between Danish nationals of Danish extraction and Danish nationals of foreign extraction can therefore be justified by this aim as regards the right to spousal reunion if a Danish national of foreign extraction has no such lasting and strong attachment to Denmark. The balancing of this overall consideration relating to the specific circumstances of this case requires a detailed assessment. The High Court finds that the assessment and decision of the Ministry were made in accordance with section 9(7) of the Aliens Act and the preparatory work describing the application of the provision. Accordingly, and in view of the specific information on [the first applicant’s] situation, the High Court finds no sufficient basis for holding that the refusal by the Ministry to grant a residence permit to [the second applicant] with reference to the attachment requirement of the Aliens Act implies a disproportionate infringement of [the first applicant’s] rights as a Danish national and his right to family life. The High Court therefore finds that the decision of the Ministry was not invalid, and that it was not contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8.” 27.     The applicants appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court ( Højesteret ), which delivered its judgment on 13 January 2010 upholding the High Court judgment. 28.     The Supreme Court, composed of seven judges, found, unanimously, that it was not in breach of Article 8 of the Convention to refuse the second applicant a residence permit in Denmark. It stated as follows. “In its decision of 27 August 2004, the Ministry of Integration rejected the application from [the second applicant] for a residence permit on the ground that the aggregate ties of herself and her spouse [the first applicant] with Denmark were not stronger than their aggregate ties with Ghana (see section 9(7) of the Aliens Act). [The applicants] first submitted that the refusal was unlawful because it was contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If the refusal was not contrary to Article 8, they submitted as their alternative claim that it was contrary to the prohibition against discrimination enshrined in Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8, for which reason they were eligible for family reunion in Denmark without satisfying the attachment requirement set out in section 9(7) of the Act. For the reasons given by the High Court, the Supreme Court upholds the Ministry’s decision that it is not contrary to Article 8 to reject [the second applicant’s] application for a residence permit.” 29.     Moreover, the majority in the Supreme Court (four judges) found that the 28-year rule was in compliance with Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8. They stated as follows. “Pursuant to section 9(7), as worded by Law no. 1204 of 27 December 2003, the requirement that the spouses’ or cohabitants’ aggregate ties with Denmark must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country (the attachment requirement) does not apply when the resident has been a Danish national for twenty-eight years (the 28-year rule). Until 2002, Danish nationals had had a general exemption from the attachment requirement. Law no. 365 of 6 June 2002 tightened up the conditions of family reunion, one of the consequences being that the attachment requirement would subsequently also apply to family reunion where one of the partners was a Danish national. One of the reasons for extending the attachment requirement to include Danish nationals also given in the preparatory work (see page 3982 of Schedule A to the Official Gazette for 2001-02 (2nd session)) is that there are Danish nationals who are not particularly well integrated in Danish society and for this reason the integration of a newly arrived spouse in Denmark may entail major problems. It quickly became apparent that this tightening up had some unintended consequences for persons such as Danish nationals who had opted to live abroad for a lengthy period and who had started a family while away from Denmark. For that reason, the rules were relaxed with effect from 1 January 2004 so that family reunion in cases where one of the partners had been a Danish national for at least twenty-eight years was no longer subject to satisfaction of the requirement of stronger aggregate ties with Denmark. According to the preparatory work in respect of the relaxation, the Government found that the fundamental aim of tightening up the attachment requirement in 2002 was not forfeited by refraining from demanding that the attachment requirement be met in cases where the resident had been a Danish national for twenty-eight years (see page 49 of Schedule A to the Official Gazette for 2003-04). It is mentioned in this connection that Danish expatriates planning to return to Denmark one day with their families will often have maintained strong ties with Denmark, which have also been communicated to their spouse or cohabitant and any children. This is so when they speak Danish at home, take holidays in Denmark, read Danish newspapers regularly, and so on. Thus, there will normally be a basis for successful integration of Danish expatriates’ family members into Danish society. Persons who have not been Danish nationals for twenty-eight years, but were born and raised in Denmark, or came to Denmark as small children and were raised here, are normally also exempt from the attachment requirement when they have stayed lawfully in Denmark for twenty-eight years. A consequence of this current state of the law is that different groups of Danish nationals are subject to differences in treatment in relation to their possibility of being reunited with family members in Denmark, as persons who have been Danish nationals for twenty-eight years are in a better position than persons who have been Danish nationals for fewer than twenty-eight years. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, nationals of a country do not have an unconditional right to family reunion with a foreigner in their home country, as factors of attachment may also be taken into account in the case of nationals of that country. It is not in itself contrary to the Convention if different groups of nationals are subject to statutory differences in treatment as regards the possibility of obtaining family reunion with a foreigner in the country of their nationality. In this respect, reference is made to paragraph 88 of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, Series A no. 94). In that case the Court found that it was not contrary to the Convention that a person born in Egypt who had later moved to the United Kingdom and become a national of the United Kingdom and Colonies was treated less favourably as regards the right to family reunion with a foreigner than a national born in the United Kingdom or whose parent(s) were born in the United Kingdom. The Court stated in that respect: ‘It is true that a person who, like Mrs   Balkandali, has been settled in a country for several years may also have formed close ties with it, even if he or she was not born there. Nevertheless, there are in general persuasive social reasons for giving special treatment to those whose links with a country stem from birth within it. The difference of treatment must therefore be regarded as having had an objective and reasonable justification and, in particular, its results have not been shown to transgress the principle of proportionality.’ The Court then held that Mrs Balkandali was not a victim of discrimination on the ground of birth. As regards Mrs Balkandali, who was a national of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it was not contrary to the Convention to make it an additional requirement for family reunion that she must have been born in the United Kingdom. A different additional requirement is made under Danish law: a requirement of Danish nationality for twenty-eight years. The question is whether [the first applicant] is subjected to discrimination contrary to the Convention owing to this criterion. We find that the criterion of twenty-eight years of Danish nationality has the same aim as the requirement of birth in the United Kingdom, which was accepted by the Court in the 1985 judgment as not being contrary to the Convention: to distinguish a group of nationals who, seen from a general perspective, have lasting and strong ties with the country. In general, a person of 28 years of age who has held Danish nationality since birth will have stronger real ties with Denmark and greater insight into Danish society than a 28-year-old person who – like [the first applicant] – only established links with Danish society as a young person or an adult. This also applies to Danish nationals who have stayed abroad for a shorter or longer period, for example in connection with education or work. We find that the 28-year rule is based on an objective criterion, as it must be considered objectively justified to select a group of nationals with such strong ties with Denmark when assessed from a general perspective that it will be unproblematic to grant family reunion with a foreign spouse or cohabitant in Denmark as it will normally be possible for such spouse or cohabitant to be successfully integrated into Danish society. Even though it is conceivable that a national who has had Danish nationality for twenty-eight years may in fact have weaker ties with Denmark than a national who has had Danish nationality for a shorter period, this does not imply that the 28-year rule should be set aside pursuant to the Convention. Reference is made to the case, relative to the then applicable additional British requirement of place of birth considered by the European Court of Human Rights, of a national who was not born in the United Kingdom, but who had in reality stronger ties with the United Kingdom than other nationals who satisfied the requirement of place of birth, but had moved abroad with their parents at a tender age or maybe had even been born abroad. It is noted in this respect that it was sufficient to satisfy that requirement for only one of the relevant person’s parents to have been born in the United Kingdom. We also find that the consequences of the 28-year rule cannot be considered disproportionate relative to [the first applicant]. [He] was born in Togo in 1971 and came to Denmark in 1993. After nine years’ residence, he became a Danish national in 2002. In 2003 he married [the second applicant] and applied for reunion with his spouse in Denmark. The application was finally rejected in 2004. The factual circumstances of this case are thus in most material aspects identical to Mrs   Balkandali’s situation assessed by the Court in its judgment in 1985, when the Court found that the principle of proportionality had not been violated. She was born in Egypt in 1946 or 1948. She first went to the United Kingdom in 1973 and obtained nationality of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1979. She married a Turkish national, Bekir Balkandali, in 1981, and their application for spousal reunion in the United Kingdom for the husband of a British national was rejected later in 1981. A comparison of the two cases reveals that both [the first applicant] and Mrs Balkandali only came to Denmark and the United Kingdom, respectively, as adults. In [the first applicant’s] case, the application was rejected when he had resided in Denmark for eleven years, two of which as a Danish national. In Mrs Balkandali’s case, the application was rejected after she had resided in the United Kingdom for eight years, two of which as a British national. On these grounds we find no basis in the case-law to find that the 28-year rule implied discrimination contrary to the Convention against [the first applicant]. As regards the significance of the European Convention on Nationality of 6   November 1997, we find for the reasons stated by the High Court that it cannot be a consequence of Article 5 § 2 of this Convention that the scope of the prohibition against discrimination based on Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 8 should be extended further than justified by the 1985 judgment. We hold on this basis that the refusal of residence for [the second applicant] given by the Ministry of Integration cannot be set aside as being invalid because it is contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 8. For this reason we vote in favour of upholding the High Court judgment.” 30.     A minority of three judges were of the view that the 28-year rule implied indirect discrimination between persons who were born Danish citizens and persons who had acquired Danish citizenship later in life. Since persons who were born Danish citizens would usually be of Danish ethnic origin, whereas persons who acquired Danish citizenship at a later point in their life would generally be of foreign ethnic origin, the 28-year rule also entailed indirect discrimination between ethnic Danish citizens and Danish citizens with a foreign ethnic background. More specifically, they stated as follows. “As stated by the majority, the requirement of section 9(7) of the Aliens Act that the spouses’ or cohabitants’ aggregate ties with Denmark must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country (the attachment requirement) does not apply when the resident person has been a Danish national for twenty-eight years (the 28 ‑ year   rule). The 28-year rule applies both to persons born Danish nationals and to persons acquiring Danish nationality later in life, but in reality the significance of the rule differs greatly for the two groups of Danish nationals. For persons born Danish nationals, the rule only implies that the attachment requirement applies until they are 28 years old. For persons not raised in Denmark who acquire Danish nationality later in life, the rule implies that the attachment requirement applies until twenty-eight years have passed after the date when any such person became a Danish national. As an example, [the first applicant], who became a Danish national at the age of 31, will be subject to the attachment requirement until he is 59 years old. The 28-year rule therefore implies that the major restriction of the right to spousal reunion resulting from the attachment requirement will affect persons who only acquire Danish nationality later in life far more often and with a far greater impact than persons born with Danish nationality. Hence, the 28-year rule results in obvious indirect difference in treatment between the two groups of Danish nationals. The vast majority of persons born Danish nationals will be of Danish ethnic origin, while persons acquiring Danish nationality later in life will generally be of other ethnic origin. At the same time, the 28-year rule therefore implies obvious indirect difference in treatment between Danish nationals of Danish ethnic origin and Danish nationals of other ethnic origin regarding the right to spousal reunion. Pursuant to section 9(7) of the Aliens Act, the attachment requirement may be disregarded if exceptional reasons make this appropriate. According to the preparatory work of the 2003 Act, this possibility of exemption is to be administered in such a manner that aliens who were born and raised in Denmark or who came to Denmark as small children and were raised here must be treated comparably to Danish nationals, which means that they will be exempt from the attachment requirement when they have lawfully resided in Denmark for twenty-eight years. However, relative to persons who were not raised in Denmark, but acquire Danish nationality later in life, this does not alter the situation described above concerning the indirect difference in treatment implied by the 28-year rule. When the attachment requirement was introduced by Law no. 424 of 31 May 2000, all Danish nationals were exempt from the requirement. Law no. 365 of 6 June 2002 made the attachment requirement generally applicable also to Danish nationals. Concerning the reason for this, the preparatory work in respect of the Law states, inter alia : ‘With resident aliens and Danish nationals of foreign extraction it is a widespread marriage pattern to marry a person from their country of origin, among other reasons due to parental pressure ... The government finds that the attachment requirement, as it is worded today, does not take sufficient account of the existence of this marriage pattern among both resident foreigners and resident Danish nationals of foreign extraction. There are thus also Danish nationals who are not well integrated into Danish society and for this reason the integration of a newly arrived spouse in Denmark may therefore entail major problems.’ By Law no. 1204 of 27 December 2003, the application of the attachment requirement to Danish nationals was restricted through the 28-year rule, and the preparatory work in respect of the Law stated that the purpose was, inter alia , ‘to ensure that Danish expatriates with strong and lasting ties to Denmark in the form of at least twenty-eight years of Danish nationality will be able to obtain spousal reunion in Denmark’. In the light of these notes, it is considered a fact that the indirect difference in treatment between Danish nationals of Danish ethnic extraction and Danish nationals of other ethnic extraction following from the 28-year rule is an intended consequence. Under Article 14 of the Convention, the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention, including the individual’s right under Article 8 to respect for his or her family life, must be ‘secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’. As mentioned above, the 28-year rule implies both indirect difference in treatment between persons born Danish nationals and persons only acquiring Danish nationality later in life and, in the same connection, indirect difference in treatment between Danish nationals of Danish ethnic extraction and Danish nationals of other ethnic extraction. Both these types of indirect difference in treatment must be considered to fall within Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8. The two types of indirect difference in treatment implied by the 28 ‑ year rule are therefore contrary to Article 14 unless the difference in treatment can be considered objectively justified and proportionate. The European Convention on Nationality of 6 November 1997, which has been ratified by Denmark, provides in Article 5 § 2: ‘Each State Party shall be guided by the principle of non-discrimination between its nationals, whether they are nationals by birth or have acquired its nationality subsequently.’ The memorandum of 14   January 2005 of the Ministry of Integration and the memorandum of November 2006 of the working group composed of representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Integration state that the provision solely concerns issues on the revocation and loss of nationality. In our opinion it is dubious whether there is any basis for such a restrictive interpretation as the provision, according to its wording, comprises any difference in treatment exercised as a consequence of how and when nationality was acquired. As is apparent from the Explanatory Report, the provision is not a prohibition from which no derogation may be made, and the provision must be taken to mean that it may be derogated from if the difference in treatment is objectively justified and proportionate. However, when assessing the 28-year rule relative to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8, we consider it necessary to include the fact that, at least according to its wording, Article 5 § 2 of the European Convention on Nationality comprises a general provision stating that any difference in treatment between different groups of a State Party’s own nationals is basically prohibited. In an assessment made under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8, another factor to be taken into consideration is the crucial importance of being entitled to settle with one’s spouse in the country of one’s nationality. As mentioned, Danish nationals were originally generally exempt from the attachment requirement. The Supreme Court established in a judgment reproduced on page 2086 of the Danish Weekly Law Reports for 2005 that discrimination relative to the right to spousal reunion based on whether the resident spouse is a Danish or foreign national is not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8. In this respect, the Supreme Court referred to paragraphs 84 to 86 of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights ... in Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali [cited above]. Difference in treatment based on nationality must be seen, inter alia , in the light of the right of Danish nationals to settle in Denmark, and no significance can be attributed to the fact that such discrimination is not considered contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 when assessing whether it is permissible to implement a scheme implying a difference in treatment between different groups of Danish nationals. In our opinion, no crucial significance can be attributed to paragraphs 87 to 89 of the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment either in this assessment, among other reasons because difference in treatment based on the length of a person’s period of nationality is not comparable to a difference in treatment based on place of birth. In the cases in which the attachment requirement applies, some of the factors emphasised are whether the resident spouse has strong links to Denmark by virtue of his or her childhood and schooling in Denmark. Such strong attachment to Denmark will exist in most cases where a person has held Danish nationality for twenty-eight years. However, when assessing whether the difference in treatment implied by the 28 ‑ year   rule can be considered objectively justified, it is not sufficient to compare persons not raised in Denmark who acquire Danish nationality later in life with the large group of persons who were born Danish nationals and were also raised in Denmark. If exemption from the attachment requirement was justified only in regard of the latter group of Danish nationals, the exemption should have been delimited differently. The crucial element must therefore be a comparison with persons who were born Danish nationals and have been Danish nationals for twenty-eight years, but who were not raised in Denmark and may perhaps not at any time have had their residence in Denmark. In our opinion, it cannot be considered a fact that, from a general perspective, this group of Danish nationals has stronger ties with Denmark than persons who have acquired Danish nationality after entering and residing in Denmark for a number of years. It should be taken into consideration in that connection that one of the general conditions for acquiring Danish nationality by naturalisation is that the relevant person has resided in Denmark for at least nine years, has proved his or her proficiency in the Danish language and knowledge of Danish society and meets the requirement of self-support. Against that background, it is our opinion that the indirect difference in treatment implied by the 28-year rule cannot be considered objectively justified, and that it is therefore contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8. The consequence of this must be that, when applying section 9(7) of the Aliens Act to Danish nationals, the authorities must limit the 28-year rule to being solely an age requirement, meaning that the attachment requirement does not apply in cases where the resident spouse is a Danish national and is at least 28 years old. Accordingly, we vote for ruling in favour of the [applicants’] claim to the effect that the Ministry of Integration must declare invalid the decision of 27 August 2004, thereby remitting the case for renewed consideration. In view of the outcome of the voting on this claim we see no reason to consider the claim for compensation.” 31.     The applicants remained in Sweden and did not subsequently apply for family reunion in Denmark, which they could have done under section   9(7) of the Aliens Act, had the first applicant decided to reside in Denmark anew. He kept his job in Copenhagen and therefore commuted every day from Malmö in Sweden to Copenhagen in Denmark. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 1.     The attachment requirement (section 9(7) of the Aliens Act) 32.     The attachment requirement was introduced into Danish legislation on 3 June 2000 as one of the conditions for granting family reunion with persons residing in Denmark who were not Danish nationals. 33.     With effect from 1 July 2002 the attachment requirement was extended to apply also to residents of Danish nationality, one of the reasons being, according to the preparatory work, that “... [e]xperience has shown that integration is particularly difficult in families where generation upon generation fetch their spouses to Denmark from their own or their parents’ country of origin. With resident aliens and Danish nationals of foreign extraction it is a widespread marriage pattern to marry a person from their country of origin, among other reasons owing to parental pressure. This pattern contributes to the retention of these persons in a situation where they, more than others, experience problems of isolation and maladjustment in relation to Danish society. The pattern thus contributes to hampering the integration of aliens newly arrived in Denmark. The government finds that the attachment requirement, as it is worded today, does not take sufficient account of the existence of this marriage pattern among both resident foreigners and resident Danish nationals of foreign extraction. There are thus also Danish nationals who are not well integrated into Danish society and for this reason the integration of a newly arrived spouse in Denmark may therefore entail major problems.” 34.     In accordance with the amendment, the spouses’ aggregate ties with Denmark must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country. By this amendment (applicable in the applicants’ case) the provision was moved to section 9(7) of the Aliens Act and reads as follows. Section 9(7) “Unless otherwise appropriate for exceptional reasons, a residence permit under subsection (l)(i) can only be issued if the spouses’ or cohabitants’ aggregate ties with Denmark are stronger than the spouses’ or cohabitants’ aggregate ties with another country.” According to the explanatory notes, “exceptional reasons” could allow for obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. 2.     The 28-year rule (inserted as an exemption in section 9(7)) 35.     It quickly became apparent that this tightening up of the rules had some unintended consequences for persons such as Danish nationals who opted to live abroad for a lengthy period and who started a family while away from Denmark. For that reason, the rules were relaxed by Law no.   1204 of 27 December 2003, with effect from 1 January 2004, so that family reunion in cases where one of the partners had been a Danish national for at least twenty-eight years were no longer subject to satisfaction of the requirement of stronger aggregate ties to Denmark. Thereafter the relevant provisions were reworded as follows. Section 9 “(1)     Upon application, a residence permit may be issued to: (i)     an alien over the age of 24 who cohabits at a shared residence, either in marriage or in regular cohabitation of prolonged duration, with a person permanently resident in Denmark over the age of 24 who: (a)     is a Danish national; ... (7)     Unless otherwise appropriate for exceptional reasons, a residence permit under subsection (1)(i)(a), when the resident person has not been a Danish national for twenty-eight years, and under subsection (1)(i)(b) to (d), can only be issued if the spouses’ or the cohabitants’ aggregate ties with Denmark are stronger than the spouses’ or the cohabitants’ aggregate ties with another country. Resident Danish nationals who were adopted from abroad before their sixth birthday and who acquired Danish nationality not later than on their adoption are considered to have been Danish nationals from birth.” 36.     The preparatory work in respect of Law no. 1204 stated as follows. “If a Danish national travels abroad and starts a family, sta