JOHANSEN v. DENMARK DECISION on Human Rights. The purpose of expelling a person is to prevent disorder or crime, and a proportionality test is therefore also required under Article 8 to determine whether the relevant person can be expelled. [The applicant] has committed serious terrorism offences, and those offences have been sanctioned with imprisonment for a term of four years. According to the travaux préparatoires of section 8b(1) of the Danish Nationality Act, the general rule is that he must be deprived of his Danish nationality, and there are also very compelling reasons for expelling him from Denmark. [The applicant] was born in 1990 on the Faroe Islands to a Faroese mother and a Tunisian father. When he was nearly three years old, he moved to Denmark with his parents, and he was raised and had his schooling in Denmark, except for a 6½-month stay in Tunisia from December 2005 to June 2006 when he was 15 years old. He has married a Danish woman in an Islamic wedding ceremony, and they have lived together since 2009. They have a son who was born in January 2010. His mother and siblings also live in Denmark. He speaks, reads and writes Danish. Even though [the applicant] has no higher education, and never had a regular attachment to the Danish labour market, and has lived on public benefits since 2011, his ties with Denmark are strong. [The applicant] was in Tunisia on holiday for one to two weeks about eight times prior to his 15th birthday and, as already mentioned, he lived in the country for six months together with his parents in 2005-2006. His father moved back to Tunisia in 2013 or 2014, but according to [the applicant’s] statement, he does not know whether his father still lives in the country. He last saw his father in May 2016 when his father visited him in prison. He speaks and reads Arabic, but he has stated that it is sometimes hard for him to understand the Tunisian dialect. He had his schooling at a Muslim school in Copenhagen. He has stated that Islam means everything to him and that he practises Islam in his everyday life. Even though [the applicant] was raised in Denmark, the Supreme Court finds in view of the information provided that it must be assumed that his ties with Tunisia and his familiarity with Tunisian culture and lifestyle are not insignificant. Based on an overall balancing test, the Supreme Court finds that neither the deprivation of [the applicant’s] Danish nationality nor expulsion combined with a permanent re-entry ban would be a disproportionate sanction. In this respect, the Supreme Court particularly takes into account the seriousness and the nature of the crime committed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that regard for [the applicant’s] family and private life in Denmark does not make the deprivation of his Danish nationality and expulsion conclusively inappropriate. It is observed in this respect that [the applicant] left his family in Denmark at his own initiative in connection with the crime committed in order to take up residence in a war zone in Syria. It is also observed that it is assumed that his live-in partner, who converted to Islam at the age of 18, and their now 8-year-old son, who has attended an Islamic school for a short period and is now home-schooled by his mother, are not entirely unprepared for accompanying him to Tunisia. If they do not want to settle in Tunisia, it is possible for them to visit him there and to communicate with him by telephone and on the Internet. Conclusion The Supreme Court changes the judgment of the High Court, depriving [the applicant] of his Danish nationality under section 8b(1) of the Danish Nationality Act and expelling him from Denmark with a permanent re-entry ban in pursuance of section 22(1)(vi), read in conjunction with section 32(2)(v), of the Aliens Act then in force.” 6