Message: K. v. Denmark. Message N 2001/2010. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on April 1, 2015.
In 2010, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Denmark.
Subject of the message: refusal to grant citizenship through naturalization.
Substantive issue: the right to equal protection of the law.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that article 26 of the Covenant provides for a separate right to prohibit discrimination by law or in practice in any area regulated and protected by public authorities, and that the application of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in article 26 of the Covenant is not limited to the rights provided for in the Covenant. When adopting its legislation, the State party must comply with the requirement of article 26 of the Covenant that its content should not be discriminatory (paragraph 7.2 of the Considerations) (See Communication No. 172/1984, Brex v. the Netherlands, Views of April 9, 1987, paragraph 12.4.).
The Committee recalls that neither the Covenant nor international law in general contain specific criteria for granting citizenship through naturalization and that States are free to decide on such criteria independently (See communication No. 1136/2002, Borzov v. Estonia, Views of 26 July 2004, paragraph 7.4.). However, by adopting and applying legislation, The authorities of the participating States must respect the applicants' rights enshrined in article 26 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls in this regard that art. 26 of the Covenant requires a reasonable and objective justification, as well as a legitimate purpose for making distinctions in connection with the characteristics of a person listed in article 26 of the Covenant (See communication No. 1136/2002, Borzov v. Estonia, Views of July 26, 2004, paragraph 7.3.), including "other circumstances" such as, for example, disability (clause 7.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee will have to decide whether the State party violated article 26 of the Covenant by refusing to grant the author an exemption from the requirement for certification in the Danish language for the purposes of his naturalization. The Committee notes that the author does not dispute the requirement of proof of language proficiency for naturalization purposes in general, but only in part of its application in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. ... In the context of this communication, this means that the Committee must examine whether the author's application for an exception was examined by the competent Danish authorities in a manner that guaranteed the author's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination (paragraph 7.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee notes that the author's complaint that the refusal to treat him as a person suffering from mental disorders and unable to learn, and thereby recognize the need to exempt him from fulfilling the language proficiency requirement provided for in the law, is a discriminatory act. The Committee notes that the author applied for exemption from the requirement to provide proof of Danish language proficiency on the basis of section 24, paragraph 3, of the Naturalization Guidelines. His statement was accompanied by medical reports indicating that at that time he suffered from acute psychosis with auditory hallucinations and paranoid ideas, brain damage, episodes of moderate and severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder manifested in personality changes, as well as various physical pathologies in the form of pain in both knees, respiratory problems, curvature of the spine and congenital hemiparesis. After receiving the initial refusal on October 5, 2007 The application and accompanying documentation were submitted by the Ministry to the Naturalization Committee of the Danish Parliament, which rejected the application on May 22, 2008. However, the Committee notes that the Ministry's letter informing the author of the decision of the Naturalization Committee does not contain any information about the fundamental reasons for such refusal. In subsequent letters sent by the Ministry in response to the author's requests to review the decisions taken on him, there was also no justification for refusing the request to release him from fulfilling the requirement prescribed in the "Guidelines for Naturalization" (paragraph 7.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated that the refusal to grant release was based on reasonable and objective reasons. The Ministry was unable to explain in detail the reasons for the decision of the Naturalization Committee to refuse the author's request, since the work of the Committee was conducted behind closed doors. According to the submission of the State party itself, the exemption provision is open to interpretation, and the practice of its application was determined by a majority vote of the members of the Naturalization Committee at any given time. In addition, the lack of motives for the decision and transparency of the procedure for its adoption severely limited the author's ability to provide additional documentation in support of his request, since he did not know the true reasons for the refusal and general trends regarding the decision-making by the Naturalization Committee in the application of section 24, paragraph 3, of the Naturalization Guidelines. In the Committee's view, the fact that the Naturalization Committee is part of the legislative branch does not exempt the State party from taking measures to inform the author, even in a brief form, of the fundamental reasons for the decision of the Naturalization Committee. In the absence of such justification, the State party has not proved that its decision not to take into account the author's mental disorder as a basis for exemption from the language proficiency requirement provided for in the legislation and to require the author to document language proficiency, despite his learning disability, was based on reasonable and objective reasons (clause 7.5 of the Considerations).
Conclusions of the Committee: The Committee concluded that the information provided to it indicates a violation of article 26 of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).