Supreme Court: Legitimate expectations must protect against loss of citizenship

Background

At Lund Elmer Sandager, we have worked closely with Danish expatriates for many years in cases concerning the retention or confirmation of Danish citizenship.

Several of the cases begin when a Danish expatriate, in connection with renewing their Danish passport, is asked to prove that they are in fact Danish – even if they have held Danish citizenship since birth.

The Ministry of Immigration and Integration (UIM) have tightened its administrative practice a few years ago – without any actual change in legislation. Until then, it was relatively easy for Danish citizens abroad to renew their passports. But after the change in the administrative practice, the need for legal advice increased significantly.

UIM began administratively revoking Danish citizenship, even from individuals who had long been registered in the Danish Civil Registration System (CPR) and/or had held Danish passports for years. This occurred in cases where UIM found that the conditions under the Danish Citizenship Act had not been fulfilled – or when the person was unable to provide the documentation required by the ministry.

We have handled many cases where people who had been Danish for many years – or even their entire lives – were asked to prove that they were Danish from birth. The required documentation is often difficult and expensive to obtain – for example, due to translation requirements or missing historical records.

For individuals with legitimate expectations of being Danish citizens – for example, because they have held Danish passports and been officially registered as Danish citizens – administrative revocation can have serious and far-reaching consequences.

It is also a significant burden for expatriates to carry the full burden of proof, when they must prove they are Danish – rather than the authorities having to prove otherwise. Whether this approach complies with the principles of good administrative practice is highly questionable, especially when there are no indications that the individual is not – or should not have been – a Danish citizen acting in good faith.

Until now, UIM has given little weight to such legitimate expectations in its practice and in assessing whether a person should be deregistered as a Danish citizen.

This strict line has often been justified with reference to Section 44(1) of the Danish Constitution, which states that no one can be granted Danish citizenship except by law. 

However, this very rigid approach has now been rejected by the Danish Supreme Court in a ruling of 3 September 2025. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the principle of legitimate expectations in administrative law also applies to nationality matters (Case BS-29672/2024-HJR).

The decision has implications not only for current and future cases but may also affect individuals who have already been deregistered as Danish citizens. They may now be entitled to have their case reopened and assessed based on whether they had a legitimate expectation of being Danish.

Supreme Court ruling

In a recent judgment, the Danish Supreme Court addressed UIM’s interpretation of legitimate expectations in nationality law.

The case involved an Egyptian man and his son who were informed by UIM that they were not – and never had been – Danish citizens. The basis for UIM’s decision was that the man had never been released from his Egyptian citizenship, which was a condition for acquiring Danish citizenship at the time.

The Court found that the man and his son did not qualify for Danish citizenship, as the condition had never been fulfilled. However, the Court placed strong emphasis on the broader principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

The reasoning in the ruling is particularly notable in that the Court clearly rejected UIM’s interpretation of Article 44(1) of the Constitution, which states that no foreigner may be granted Danish citizenship except by law. The Court held that this provision does not exclude the application of general principles of administrative law – such as legitimate expectations – in nationality matters.

Whether the general rule of annulment can and should be set aside depends, according to the Supreme Court, on a specific balancing of interests, between enforcement of the Danish Citizenship Act on one hand, and protection of the citizen on the other.

The Court generally states that retention of Danish citizenship may be justified where a person, over a long period and in good faith, has arranged their life in the legitimate belief that they were Danish – and where the loss of Danish citizenship would be disproportionately burdensome.

We expect the ruling to lead to reopening of a number of cases. Many Danish expatriates who have been Danish all their lives – or for many years – and who have structured their lives accordingly, will likely no longer face the same extensive documentation requirements and restrictive interpretation of the law as before.

On 11 September 2025, the Minister for Immigration informed the Danish Parliament that a number of cases will be suspended while the Ministry reconsiders its practice. It is currently unclear whether concluded cases will be reopened automatically.

What can you do if you have lost your Danish citizenship?

If you have a pending case, have already lost your Danish citizenship, or are otherwise affected by UIM’s now-overturned administrative practice, we recommend that you seek legal advice.

You may have grounds to have your case reopened, and/or to ask the authorities to consider your legitimate expectations and personal circumstances in the process.

At Lund Elmer Sandager, our team specialising in Danish nationality law is ready to help. You are welcome to contact Partner Michael Møller Nielsen, Attorney Anna Lindencrone Lundin or Assistant Attorney Liw Christensen for assistance.