CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16711/15 Mahdi Mohammad Bin-Abeddal-Sala MOHAMMAD against Denmark lodged on 31 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an Algerian national, born in 1994, who lost his family in Algeria and therefore left the country, it appears, when he was 10   years old. He entered Denmark in 2008, when he was 14 years old. His request for asylum was refused, but he was granted a residence permit as an unaccompanied minor. The applicant had problems with drug abuse. He also had mental health problems. In 2012 and 2013 he was convicted four times. The latter two times he was imposed a conditional expulsion order. By a judgment, which became final on 10 October 2014, he was anew convicted, inter alia , of robbery, and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. In addition, he was expelled from Denmark with a ban on returning for six years.   The applicant complained that the order expelling him from Denmark was in breach of Article8 of the Convention, notably due to his personal problems and his lack of ties to Algeria.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the High Court’s decision of 19   May 2014, which became final on 10   October 2014, to expel the applicant from Denmark in breach of Article   8 of the Convention? (see, inter alia , Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no.   46410/99, ECHR   2006 ‑ XII).