CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sCB1DFF2F { width:115.68%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sCCA4659C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6D8E5FD0 { width:45%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6F721BDE { width:12.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s36AE8B8E { width:16.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3979AC19 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14AC249C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s65243CB0 { width:45%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s985942D8 { width:12.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7C9D7CA0 { width:16.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s126F01E6 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 20 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28417/25 Solomon ONOABHAGBE and Others against Denmark lodged on 5 September 2025 communicated on 2 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal by the Danish authorities to grant the applicants a residence permit. The applicants are a father and his four children, all Nigerian nationals. On 10   May   2010 the applicant father was granted a temporary residence permit to work in Denmark. He and his wife entered the country in April 2011. Their oldest child, G, was born in Denmark on 14 September 2011. He was granted a temporary residence permit on 29 October 2013. The spouses had three more children. The family’s residence permits were prolonged several times, most recently until 1 July 2018. Subsequently, the family requested a residence permit on the basis of G’s individual ties to Denmark. Their request was refused by the immigration authorities by a final decision of 1 April 2019. The applicants re-applied for a residence permit in March 2020, when G. was eight and a half years old. The immigration authorities refused their request on 10   February   2021, finding that G. did not have sufficient individual ties to Denmark as required under section 9c(1) of the Aliens Act. In this respect, they concluded, among other things, that although G had lived lawfully in the country since his birth, only the period from 29 October 2013 until 1   July 2018, that is less than five years, could be taken into account when calculating the length of G’s lawful residence permit in Denmark. Moreover, when assessing G’s ties to Denmark, only the “formative years” could be taken into account. In general, those commenced when a child starts in school, approximately at the age of seven. The applicants brought the case before the courts relying on Article 8 of the Convention. The family left Denmark on 21 April 2021. By a final judgment of 7 May 2025, the Supreme Court found against the applicants. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the reasons adduced by the immigration authorities to refuse to grant the applicants a residence permit, confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 May 2025, fulfil the fair balance assessment that has to be struck between the competing interests of, on one hand, the individual, including the best interest of the child, and, on the other hand, the community as a whole, as required by Article 8 of the Convention?     APPENDIX Application no. 28417/25 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Solomon ONOABHAGBE 1975 Nigerian Karlskrona 2. Gabrian ONOABHAGBE 2011 Nigerian Nigeria 3. Gabriana Ejehi ONOABHAGBE 2013 Nigerian Nigeria 4. Gianna Onosereme ONOABHAGBE 2015 Nigerian Nigeria 5. Giovanni ONOABHAGBE 2018 Nigerian Nigeria