No grounds for withdrawing Danish citizenship due to fraud

Case no. 90/2025

Judgment delivered on 4 June 2026

The Prosecution Service
vs.
A
and
B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5

In 2014, A applied for Danish citizenship (naturalisation). In connection with his application, A submitted a declaration stating, among other things, that he would comply with Danish law. In January 2016, the authorities announced that he would be included in the naturalisation bill to be heard in the spring of 2016 with expected adoption in July 2016.

On 11 May 2016, A was reported to the police for having hit a 12-year-old boy in the face and ripping the boy’s t-shirt at the collar on that same day. On 1 June 2016, A was charged with violation of section 244 of the Danish Criminal Code for hitting the boy in the face, causing him to have a nosebleed, and ripping the boy’s shirt.

On 2 June 2016, the naturalisation bill was passed.

On 22 June 2016, A received his citizenship certificate. As a result, A’s five children, B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5, also received citizenship certificates.

By judgment of 31 August 2016, A was acquitted of the charges made against him on 1 June 2016, including allegedly hitting the boy. However, he was sentenced to 10 days of suspended imprisonment for assault under section 244 of the Criminal Code for pulling the boy off a swing and for threats under section 266 of the Criminal Code. In determining the sentence, the Court took into account, among other things, that A had acted in understandable agitation over what was described to him as very abusive behaviour towards his 8-year-old child. A did not appeal the judgment. 

The case before the Supreme Court concerned whether there were grounds for withdrawing A’s Danish citizenship because he failed to inform the authorities about the incident on 11 May 2016 and the charge made against him on 1 June 2016 in the period from 11 May 2016 and until the naturalisation bill was adopted on 2 June 2016.

The Supreme Court held that the information in the case could indicate that A could very well have misconstrued the factual circumstances and believed that he was not obliged to inform the authorities of the incident on 11 May 2016.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that, based on a proportionality assessment, it found no basis for withdrawing A’s Danish citizenship.

A was therefore acquitted. As a result, B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 were also acquitted.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.