According to the ECtHR's press release, “the applicant, Mr Allabed, is a Syrian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Aarhus (Denmark). Mr Allabed entered Denmark in 2013 and was granted residence as a refugee. By a final Supreme Court judgment of 29 January 2025 he was convicted of, among other offences, money laundering and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment. His expulsion from Denmark was ordered with a six-year re-entry ban. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, Mr Allabed complains about the Supreme Court's decision ordering his expulsion. In particular, he argues that the six-year re-entry ban amounts to a de facto permanent ban as he has no prospect, as a Syrian national, of re-entering Denmark.”

The ECtHR considered it established that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8, that the expulsion order and the re‑entry ban were “in accordance with the law”, and that they pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime.

Regarding the proportionality of the measure, the ECtHR noted that the Danish courts based their legal reasoning on the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act and the Criminal Code, and the Danish Supreme Court found that the applicant constituted a threat to public order considering:

• the seriousness of the offences committed and the sentence imposed (14 offences of money laundering, a particularly serious nature, and one offence of handling stolen goods; he was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment). Thus, the Supreme Court considered that there was a significant risk that he would commit serious criminal offences in Denmark in the future.
• the length of the applicant's stay in Denmark, eight and a half years by the time he started committing the offences.
• the applicant's ties with Denmark, finding that they were limited, whereas his ties with Syria were strong and he was well equipped to make a life in Syria.
• the applicant's family situation and concluded that the wife, a Syrian national, could make a life in Syria and the two minor children (aged 12 and 14), were not ill‑equipped for living in Syria, given that they had been raised in a Syrian family. In the alternative, they could remain in Denmark and maintain contact through visits to Syria, or to other countries, by telephone or via the internet.

The ECtHR noted that the Supreme Court did not analyse the time that had elapsed since the offence was committed and the applicant's conduct since that moment, although the ECtHR observed that the applicant was subsequently detained on remand, charged with several new offences of money laundering of a particularly serious nature.

The ECtHR also noted that it was unfortunate that the Supreme Court did not address the issue raised by the applicant before the Supreme Court that a six‑year re‑entry ban had amounted de facto to a permanent ban. However, the ECtHR noted that, after the expiry of the re‑entry ban, the applicant could apply for family reunification.

Taking into account all these factors, the ECtHR concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.