JOHANSEN v. DENMARK DECISION Opinion on the issue of expulsion Initially, it is observed that it follows from section 26(2) of the Aliens Act that an alien must be expelled under sections 22 to 24 unless expulsion would be contrary to Denmark’s international obligations. In view of the information given by the prosecution on the nature of the crime and on the expectation that he will be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six years, read in conjunction with the considerations set out in section 26(2) of the Aliens Act, the Danish Immigration Service concurs in the prosecution’s recommendation of expulsion. ...” 12. On 26 October 2017 the applicant was convicted by the District Court of Frederiksberg (Retten på Frederiksberg) (hereafter the “District Court”), sitting with a jury, of a violation of Articles 114c(3) and 114d(3) of the Penal Code and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. It was deemed established that he had entered Syria on 9 September 2013 and accepted recruitment and training in the commission of terrorist acts falling under Articles 114 and 114a of the Penal Code. He had received training until 19 February 2014, when he had returned to Denmark. Relying on an overall assessment, the District Court, by a majority of ten out of twelve judges, found no basis for depriving the applicant of his Danish nationality, which meant that there was no basis for his expulsion. 13. The prosecution appealed against the judgment to the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Vestre Landsret) (hereafter “the High Court”), submitting that the applicant should be deprived of his Danish citizenship and expelled. 14. On 20 April 2018 the High Court, by a majority of four out of six judges, upheld the District Court judgment. 15. On 28 June 2018 the Appeals Permission Board (Procesbevillingsnævnet) granted the prosecution permission to appeal against the decision relating to the deprivation of Danish nationality and expulsion to the Supreme Court (Højesteret). 16. By judgment of 19 November 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously (all five judges) deprived the applicant of his Danish nationality and expelled him from Denmark with a permanent ban on his return. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court specifically relied on Article 8 of the Convention and, among others, Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008. As to the concrete assessment in the present case, it stated: “As already mentioned, [the applicant], who has both Danish and Tunisian nationality, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years for violation of Article 114c(3) and Article 114d(3) of the Penal Code. Accordingly, section 8b(1) of the Danish Nationality Act authorises the deprivation of his Danish nationality, and if he is deprived of his Danish nationality, section 22(1)(vi) of the Aliens Act provides the authority to expel him from Denmark. A decision to deprive him of his Danish nationality must be based on a proportionality test. If he is to be deprived of his Danish nationality, he must also be expelled, unless the expulsion would be contrary to Denmark’s international obligations, see section 26(2) of the Aliens Act then in force, read with Article 8 of the European Convention 5