JACOBSEN POBLADOR LAW FIRM

Before the election, the Parliament considered a bill which, among other things, contained proposals to introduce a new temporary scheme for the employment of foreign labour, a so-called ‘temporary new supplementary pay limit scheme’.

Det formodes fortsat, at den nye beløbsordning vil blive indført. 

The bill embodied certain parts of the prior government's agreement reached on 21 January 2022 with the Socialistisk Folkeparti, Radikale Venstre og Kristendemokraterne on "Strengthened international recruitment on fair working conditions and targeting labour shortages". The agreement can be read here.

The new plan means that a residence permit can be granted, on application, to a foreigner who has concluded an agreement or been offered employment in a professional field where the employment involves an annual salary of at least DKK 375,000. The salary requirement is thus much lower than the requirement under the ordinary pay limit scheme, which is currently DKK 448.000.

The scheme will be subject to the conditions that generally apply to occupational schemes, including that recruitment through the scheme must be on usual Danish pay and employment terms. In addition, the new scheme is conditional on:
1. Der kun kan meddeles nye opholdstilladelser, såfremt de seneste tre måneders sæsonkorrigerende bruttoledighed i gennemsnit overstiger 3,75 pct (tal der offentliggøres af Danmarks Statistik), og at
2. The company declares that the position has been advertised on Jobnet for at least two weeks.

We often assist both employers and employees in obtaining work permits. If you would like guidance on what the new rules might mean for you, please contact us.

Many people dream of living in a houseboat, and now there is light ahead for those who want to make this dream come true in Copenhagen.

Houseboats are defined as floating units moored in a harbour and used for private residential or commercial purposes. To qualify as a houseboat, the use must be of a permanent nature. Houseboats are a unique way of living because of their proximity to the water.

In recent years, the Municipality of Copenhagen and the City & Port have taken many initiatives to make it possible for more people to fulfil their dream of living on a houseboat, but so far this has only resulted in a few real houseboat places in the harbour. It is up to the owners of the land and the quay to rent out the berths to houseboats, and some of the berths have been sold off to private companies in recent years. Many private landowners do not wish to have houseboats berthed.

In addition, it is difficult for existing houseboat owners to navigate the different sets of rules that apply in this area. Houseboats are subject to legislation applicable on the territorial sea, including the 'Technical regulation on houseboats and stability, buoyancy etc. of floating structures'. Houseboats may also be covered by the Building Act, in which case a building permit may be required to use a houseboat as a dwelling. In addition, special insurance is usually required for mooring in the harbour. Often the rent of the berth is regulated by a private law agreement and with a relatively short notice period.

All this means that buying a houseboat is something of a minefield.

Now it seems that something is finally happening in this area. On 13 December 2021, it was decided that the City of Copenhagen's Technical and Environmental Committee will discuss ways to get more houseboats in the Port of Copenhagen and ensure the legalisation of existing houseboats. The basis for this is a proposal put forward by the Left at the Technical and Environment Committee meeting on 8 June 2020. It is proposed that the Technical and Environmental Administration can enter into cooperation with City & Port to discuss how to jointly promote more houseboats in Copenhagen:Muligheder for at sikre flere husbåde i Københavns Havn. 

Muligheder for at sikre flere husbåde i Københavns Havn.

It will be interesting to see what the municipality and City & Port come up with. Hopefully there is light ahead for current houseboat owners and those who dream of living on the water.

We assist in matters concerning the purchase and sale of houseboats, and we also advise on the rules in this area.

On 15 December 2021, the Supreme Regional Court ruled that a number of residents in Mjølnerparken have the right to bring legal action against the Ministry of the Interior and Housing regarding the measures in the "Ghetto Package". More specifically, the lawsuit concerns the Ministry of Interior and Housing's approval of a development plan for Mjølnerparken, which involves selling off the residents' homes.

The residents filed the lawsuit on 27 May 2020 and since then the Ministry of Interior and Housing has been trying to have the case dismissed. The Ministry held that the residents could not sue the Ministry because the Ministry had not prepared the development plan itself and because the decision to approve the development plan was not itself directed against the residents.

The Supreme Court has now rejected the Ministry's claim, reasoning that the residents are specifically and individually affected by the Ministry's approval of the development plan, which entails the sale of their homes. The Court states that it is of no importance that the development plan has not yet been implemented and that the residents have not been terminated, since termination is such an intrusive circumstance that the residents must be allowed to have the validity of the approval tested before it has reached that stage.

The "ghetto package" and the case against the Ministry of the Interior and Housing have received considerable international attention, and with the decision of the Supreme Court that the case against the Ministry of the Interior and Housing will continue, two UN Special Rapporteurs have now requested permission to intervene in the case in support of the Mjølnerpark residents.

The UN Special Rapporteurs are independent human rights experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council.

The two Rapporteurs who have submitted requests to intervene in the case are the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, Mr E. Tendayi Achiume, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Balakrishnan Rajagopal.

We are leading the case on behalf of the residents, with the support of the Open Society Justice Initiative and Almen Resistance, and are also assisting the UN Special Rapporteurs with their interventions.

British nationals who have so far resided in Denmark on the basis of EU law must apply for a new residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement by 31 December 2021. It is therefore becoming the last call if you as a British national want to secure your right to reside in Denmark in the future.

To obtain a residence permit under the Withdrawal Agreement, it is a requirement that prior to the end of the transitional period on 31 December 2020, you had a right of residence in Denmark on the basis of EU law, for example as a worker, a person of sufficient means or a family member of an EU or UK national.

However, it is not a requirement that you have previously been issued with an EU registration certificate, as long as you can prove that you have actually and genuinely resided in Denmark on a basis covered by EU law at the end of 2020, e.g. as a worker. Therefore, in certain cases, you may be covered by the withdrawal agreement even if you have previously held a residence permit under the rules of the Aliens Act.

If you have obtained the right of permanent residence under the EU rules before 31 December 2020, but are currently abroad, you can still apply for a residence permit under the withdrawal agreement before the end of 2021. Under the withdrawal agreement, you retain your right of permanent residence as long as you return to Denmark within 5 years of your departure. You may therefore in some cases have retained your right of permanent residence even if you would have lost it under EU law because you have been out of the country for more than 2 years.

Applications should be submitted to the Swedish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration (SIRI). If you are abroad, you can submit your application and have your biometrics taken through a Danish representation or a visa application centre (VFS).

If you have any doubts about whether you are covered by the withdrawal agreement, or have any questions about the application procedure, please feel free to contact us.

On 14 September 2021, in a case in which we assisted a person who had been permanently expelled following a criminal conviction, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of our client that the expulsion constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Born in Somalia, the applicant came to Denmark when he was four years old and has been legally resident in the country for more than twenty years. He has not since visited his country of origin and, apart from a basic knowledge of the Somali language, has virtually no personal ties with the country.

In October 2018, he was sentenced at the Vestre Landsret to two and a half years' imprisonment and permanent deportation for, in association with three others, possessing a loaded firearm and two minor offences under the law on narcotic drugs. Prior to this conviction, he had received a suspended sentence for robbery and a partially suspended sentence for burglary committed when he was a minor. As an adult, he had a number of fines for traffic offences as well as offences under the law on narcotic drugs. None of his previous convictions had resulted in conditional or notice of deportation.

The European Court of Human Rights has considered the complaint under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to privacy, as our client has not yet established his own family in Denmark.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights had to assess whether the expulsion could be considered a proportionate punishment, taking into account, on the one hand, the seriousness of the offences and the length of the sentence imposed on our client and, on the other hand, his strong ties with Denmark and correspondingly weak ties with Somalia.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the permanent expulsion of an established immigrant who has spent most of his childhood and youth in the host country requires very weighty considerations of the maintenance of law and order.

In this context, the European Court of Human Rights pointed out that, notwithstanding the fact that the crime convicted constituted, in isolation, a threat to public policy at the time of the commission of the crime, it had not been established, on the basis of previous criminal convictions, that our client generally constituted such a threat.

In the light of all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that our client was sentenced to a relatively mild penalty, had never previously been warned of possible deportation, had very strong links with Denmark and virtually no links with Somalia, the European Court of Human Rights found that by deporting our client permanently the Danish State had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Read the judgment here

The European Court of Justice will clarify whether it is contrary to EU law that Danes born with dual nationality abroad automatically lose their Danish nationality at the age of 22, unless they have previously applied to retain it or meet a number of requirements for residence or stay in Denmark.

In a case in which we assist a client who has been refused the retention of his Danish citizenship after the age of 22, the Østre Landsret, in an order dated 8 June 2021, has ruled in favour of our client that clarification of the issue requires the involvement of the European Court of Justice.

The Court has thus decided that a preliminary question must be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) with a view to the Court of Justice of the European Union taking a position on the compatibility of Section 8(1) of the Danish Nationality Act with EU law, more specifically with Article 20 TFEU and Article 7 of the Charter of the European Union (the Charter).

It follows from the first indent of Article 8(1) of the Danish Nationality Act that a person who was born Danish abroad and who has never resided in Denmark or stayed in Denmark in circumstances indicating a connection with Denmark automatically loses his Danish nationality on reaching the age of 22, unless he thereby becomes stateless. If an application is made for retention of citizenship between the ages of 21 and 22, the Minister for Immigration and Integration may, on the basis of a specific assessment, decide that citizenship shall nevertheless be retained, cf.

In cases where the person concerned does not have the nationality of another EU country, the loss of Danish nationality implies that the person concerned also loses the status of citizen of the Union to which he or she is entitled under Article 20 TFEU.

The CJEU has previously, in judgment C-221/17, Tjebbes, EU:C:2019:189, taken a position on partly comparable Dutch rules according to which Dutch nationality is, as a rule, lost after 10 years of continuous residence outside the country. In this context, the CJEU ruled that in cases where the loss of a national citizenship also entails the loss of Union citizenship, the individual concerned is covered by EU law. While such a rule of loss, aimed at ensuring a genuine national affiliation, is not by definition contrary to EU law, it is nevertheless incumbent on the Member State to carry out a concrete proportionality assessment of the EU law consequences of the loss, including in the light of Article 7 of the Charter concerning the right to private and family life.

As a result of this decision, the Ministry of Immigration and Integration has introduced a practice whereby the applicant's links with other EU countries are assessed before a decision is taken on the loss of Danish nationality. However, this assessment is made only when an application for retention is submitted before the applicant reaches the age of 22.

Our client was born in the United States to a Danish mother, and was granted dual Danish/US citizenship from birth. As she has never lived in Denmark, she lost her Danish citizenship at the age of 22. She was subsequently refused her application to retain her nationality, as she had not applied between her 21st and 22nd years as required by the second paragraph of Article 8(1) of the Danish Nationality Act.

The Dutch rule, which was the subject of the Court's assessment in Tjebbes, differs substantially from Article 8(1) of the Nationality Act in that the former allows the date of loss to be deferred by applying for renewal of her Dutch passport at any time during the 10-year period of loss. In contrast, the Nationality Act only provides for retention on the basis of an overall assessment when the application is made before the age of 22.

Moreover, as the Tjebbes judgment leaves some doubt as to the actual content of the Dutch possibilities for retention or re-acquisition of nationality, it is not possible on the basis of the judgment to derive general criteria as to when a rule of automatic loss of nationality is contrary to EU law.

As a result, the Eastern High Court held that there remained such doubts as to the compatibility of a rule such as Article 8(1) of the Danish Nationality Act with Article 20 TFEU and Article 7 of the Charter that the conditions for referral for a preliminary ruling were met in this case, despite the objection of the Ministry of Immigration and Integration to the request for referral.

The case is of principle, as the CJEU's assessment may have future implications for Danish legislation and practice in the area of automatic loss of Danish citizenship, just as the decision could potentially have implications for persons who have previously lost their Danish citizenship pursuant to Section 8 of the Danish Citizenship Act

The transitional period of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement expires on 31 December 2020, and British nationals will no longer be able to enjoy the right to free movement within the EU after the end of the year.

If you are a British citizen who was granted a residence permit in Denmark under EU rules before 31 December 2020, you will retain the rights deriving from EU law and can therefore continue to live, work or study in Denmark under unchanged conditions.

However, the legal basis for your residence permit will change from being linked to the EU rules on free movement to being based on the Withdrawal Agreement. This means that you must apply to change your residence status to the Swedish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration. The application can be submitted no earlier than 1 January 2021 and no later than 31 December 2021.

The requirement to change your residence status also applies if you have a residence permit in Denmark as a family member of a British citizen, and if you have an unlimited residence permit in Denmark under EU rules.

UK nationals applying for residence in Denmark after 31 December 2020 will have third-country national status and their applications will be processed under the Danish Aliens Act.

We assist clients with both applications for change of residence status and new applications for residence permits. We can also assist in obtaining the necessary documentation for the application.

Denmark has accepted dual citizenship since 1 September 2015.

I forbindelse med lovændringen blev der vedtaget en 5-årig overgangsordning, som giver tidligere danske statsborgere, der har fortabt deres danske statsborgerskab, mulighed for at generhverve det ved erklæring.

Overgangsordningen udløber d. 31. august 2020.

Er du tidligere dansk statsborger, der har fortabt dit danske statsborgerskab ved at søge om statsborgerskab i et andet land, kan du stadig nå at generhverve dit danske statsborgerskab uden at miste dit nye, hvis du indgiver din erklæring inden 31. august 2020.

Hvis du er australsk statsborger ”by descent”, født uden for Australien, skal du være opmærksom på, at du kan have fortabt dit danske statsborgerskab, hvis du har søgt om bekræftelse af dit australske statsborgerskab forud for 1. september 2015. Du kan læse mere om denne problematik here.

Before applying for re-acquisition, you should make sure that the other country of your nationality also allows dual citizenship.

We assist clients in reacquiring and retaining Danish citizenship and can also help with obtaining the necessary documentation for the application.

Sammen med organisationerne Open Society Justice Initiative og Almen Modstand, bistår vi en række beboere i Mjølnerparken i København, i en retssag mod transport- og Boligministeriet, med henblik på at opnå anerkendelse af, at tiltagene i medfør af den såkaldte ”Ghettopakke” er ulovlige i henhold til EU-retten og den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention.

Sagen har udgangspunkt i den lovpakke, som blev vedtaget af Folketinget 22. november 2018, og som har til hensigt, at regulere boligområder, som efter lovpakkens kriterier kan betegnes som ghettoer.  Dette skal blandt andet ske ved, at andelen af almene familieboliger inden 2030 nedbringes til højest 40% i de boligområder, der er udpeget som ”hårde ghettoer”, dvs. områder som igennem 4 år har opfyldt ghettokriterierne.

Mjølnerparken er en såkaldt ”hård ghetto” og på den baggrund vedtog bestyrelsen for Mjølnerparkens boligorganisation den 14. maj 2019 en udviklingsplan som indebærer salg af 200 lejligheder i bebyggelsen, hvilket vil medføre, at en stor del af Mjølnerparkens beboere mister deres hjem. Planen blev den 20. juni 2019 godkendt af Københavns kommune og den 10. september af Transport- og Boligministeriet.

Det primære kriterium for hvornår et boligområde kan betegnes som en ghetto er, at andelen af beboere, der er indvandrere eller efterkommere fra ikke-vestlige lande, overstiger 50 pct.  I stævningen er der derfor nedlagt påstand om anerkendelse af, at den statsgodkendte udviklingsplan er i strid med lov om etnisk ligebehandling, EU-retten og Danmarks Internationale forpligtelser. Søgsmålet gør gældende, at planen udgør ulovlig forskelsbehandling og krænker sagsøgernes ret til respekt for hjemmet samt deres ejendomsret og frihed til at vælge bopæl.

Det centrale element i sagen er, at beboerne i Mjølnerparken behandles ringere end folk, som bor i områder med en sammenlignelig socioøkonomisk sammensætning, der ikke er klassificeret som ghettoer. Ifølge EU-retten og Danmarks internationale forpligtelser skal enhver forskelsbehandling være sagligt begrundet og nødvendig for at opfylde et tvingende samfundsmæssigt behov.

Forskelsbehandlingen i relation til de udpegede ghettoområder beror på andelen af ikke-vestlige indvandrere og efterkommere. Dette kriterium er uomtvisteligt knyttet til disse beboeres race, religion og etniske oprindelse og udgør dermed ulovlig forskelsbehandling, der griber ind i beboernes grundlæggende rettigheder.

Du kan læse mere om sagen på Open Society’s hjemmeside:

Pressemeddelelse

Interview med Majken Felle, beboer i Mjølnerparken

Mere information om sagsanlægget

Højesteret har i dag afsagt dom i en sag, hvor vi har bistået en kvinde, der af en kommune var blevet pålagt at dække kontanthjælpsbeløb udbetalt til hendes tidligere svigermor.

Højesteret gav vores klient medhold i sagen, hvis omdrejningspunkt var den tidsmæssige rækkevidde af de garantierklæringer, hun afgav i hhv. 1999 og 2003, hvorved hun påtog sig at forsørge sin daværende svigermor, der blev familiesammenført i 1999.

Vores klient, der i 2007 blev separeret fra sin ægtefælle, modtog i 2016 henvendelse fra ægtefællens mors bopælskommune med anmodning om tilbagebetaling af beløb udbetalt i kontanthjælp til ægtefællens mor igennem de forudgående 3 år.

I dommen fastslår Højesteret enstemmigt, at de omhandlede garantierklæringer bortfaldt da svigermoderen blev meddelt tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse i 2004, idet en tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse ikke er betinget af garantens forsørgelse, og derfor ikke kan inddrages under henvisning til manglende opfyldelse af garantien. I dommen udtaler Højesteret:

”Hvis en garantierklæring ikke desto mindre skal fortsætte med at gælde i denne situation, vil det kunne indebære en omfattende og langvarig forsørgelsespligt for garanten, herunder i tilfælde hvor forbindelsen mellem garanten og den familiesammenførte udlænding er ophørt.”

Centralt i sagen var spørgsmålet om hvorvidt ændringer i udlændingeloven, der gennemførtes i 2002, og som i en række situationer begrænser garantierklæringers rækkevidde til det tidspunkt, hvor den familiesammenførte person meddeles tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse, tillige finder anvendelse på familiesammenføringer, der er gennemført forud for ændringernes ikrafttræden.

Dette er ifølge Højesteret tilfældet, idet den nye bestemmelse ifølge forarbejderne udgør en præcisering, snarere end en ændring, af den tidsmæssige udstrækning af garantens forsørgelsespligt, og idet det efter Højesterets opfattelse ville kræve udtrykkelig lovhjemmel såfremt en garantierklæring fortsat skulle kunne gøres gældende efter meddelelse af tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse.

Med dagens dom underkender Højesteret Københavns Byret og Østre Landsrets tidligere afgørelser i sagen i hhv. 2018 og 2019 og gør op med 15 års forkert praksis for inddrivelse hos garanter.

Højesterets dom i sagen forventes at få betydning for en lang række andre sager, hvor kommuner løbende har fremsat krav mod garanter.

Hvis du står i en lignende situation, hvor du er blevet mødt med et krav for hjælp, der er udbetalt til en familiesammenført forælder eller lignende, er du velkommen til at kontakte os, så vi kan drøfte din sag nærmere.