CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57467/15 Arıf SAVRAN against Denmark lodged on 16 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a Turkish national, born in 1985, who entered Denmark in 1991, together with his mother and four siblings, to join his father. He is unmarried and has no children.   By a final judgment of 10 August 2009, the Supreme Court found it established that the applicant had committed aggravated assault resulting in the victim’s death. Due to his state of insanity, the applicant could not be held criminally liable. The Supreme Court therefore ordered him placed in a psychiatric hospital, without a fixed timeframe. Moreover, he was expelled from Denmark with a life-long ban on returning.   Subsequent to a request by the psychiatric hospital in 2013 that the measure should be replaced by outpatient psychiatric treatment, the applicant, by virtue of section 50 a of the Aliens Act, requested the expulsion order revoked due to his state of health. He maintained that he would not be able to obtain the required psychiatric treatment in Turkey. By decision of 14   October 2014, the City Court revoked the expulsion order. On appeal, on 13 January 2015, the High Court refused to revoke the expulsion order. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 20   May 2015.   The applicant complained that the decision to refuse to revoke the order expelling him from Denmark was in breach of Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention, notably due to his state of health. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the High Court’s decision of 13 January 2015, which became final on 20 May 2015, to refuse to revoke the order expelling the applicant from Denmark in breach of Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention? (see, inter alia , Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII).