CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014
1.3
On 24 June 2014, the Committee, acting through the Special Rapporteur under rule
97, paragraph 3, of its rules of procedure, decided to examine the admissibility of the
communication together with its merits.
1.4
On 19 December 2014, the Committee, acting through the Special Rapporteur,
decided to deny the State party’s request dated 5 August 2014 to lift the interim measures.
The facts as submitted by the authors
2.1
In the 1990s, the authors’ family engaged in a land dispute with the Shtjefni family
in Albania. In 2008, the authors’ family was accused of killing a member of the Shtjefni
family and threatened. Consequently, F.P. moved with her two children, born in 2002 and
2005, to the city of Skhoder, while E.P. hid in different villages. F.P. experienced verbal
threats and inquiries by unknown persons and a probable attempt to kidnap her son in
Skhoder. Both children had to be accompanied to school and the son was later taken out of
school to stay with F.P. in order to ensure his better protection. In 2012, the killing of
another member of the Shtjefni family in Italy led to additional threats and searches for the
authors’ family by the Shtjefni family. Consequently, F.P. changed location again and
settled in another village, Urae Shtrejt. The authors’ reconciliation attempts with the
Shtjefni family through the police and the national reconciliation committee were to no
avail. Consequently, the authors decided to leave Albania.
2.2
On 30 June 2012, the authors and their children arrived in Denmark. On 3 July 2012,
they claimed asylum on the grounds of a blood feud in Albania that threatened their lives.
On 18 July 2012, the Danish immigration service rejected their application for asylum and
ordered them to leave Denmark. The immigration service determined that the verbal threats
and the conflict with the Shtjefni family was “not of an intensity and character that it is
comparable with asylum-relevant persecution under article 7 of the Alien’s Act”. Since the
decision was issued as “manifestly unfounded” under section 53 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act,
no appeal could be filed before the Danish refugee board.
2.3
On an unspecified date, the authors applied before the Ministry of Justice for a
residence permit on humanitarian grounds, according to section 9 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act.
On 7 June 2013, the Ministry rejected the application and ordered the authors and their
children to leave Denmark on 22 June 2013.
2.4
On 21 June 2013, the authors’ counsel filed an action before the District Court of
Copenhagen against the decision of the immigration service to reject the asylum claim. The
action, to claim asylum in Denmark and suspend the authors’ expulsion to Albania in the
meantime, was rejected by the Court on 18 September 2013, on the grounds that the
authors’ interest in staying in the country during the judicial proceedings did not outweigh
the immigration service’s interest in enforcing immigration legislation. The Court further
established that the information available did not disclose a risk of persecution for the
authors in their home country such as to justify suspending the court proceedings.
2.5
On an unspecified date, the authors’ counsel appealed against the decision of the
District Court of Copenhagen before the High Court of Eastern Denmark. On 15 November
2013, the High Court of Eastern Denmark upheld the decision of the District Court of
Copenhagen. On an unspecified date, the authors applied for permission to appeal against
the decision of the High Court of Eastern Denmark to the Supreme Court. On 20 December
2013, the appeals permission board denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, on the
grounds that the appeal did not involve any matter of principle.
2.6
The authors submit that they have exhausted all available and effective domestic
remedies.
3