CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 7.2 The State party considers that its earlier observations as to the author’s rights are also applicable to the rights of his children. In that regard, the State party stresses the fact that the children were born after both the District Court and the High Court had reviewed his case, under section 50 of the Aliens Act, as to whether the expulsion should stand. The author may have had leave to see his children but, according to the information available, he has never lived together with them at any time. 7.3 The State party notes that in his comments of 6 January 2014, the author summarizes that his case concerns: (1) whether section 50 of the Danish Aliens Act complies with Denmark’s international obligations, including under article 13 of the Covenant; and (2) whether the original judgement and expulsion decision, including the permanent re-entry ban, are in accordance with articles 2, 23 and 24 of the Covenant, considering his present circumstances. 7.4 As for the author’s claims that it is not possible, under section 50 of the Aliens Act, to have a new legal assessment of changed personal circumstances, the State party maintains that this provision ensures that an expelled alien has the right to have a judicial review of circumstances which may have arisen after the expulsion decision was made and which, if they had existed at the time of the expulsion decision, might have led to another result. The State party reiterates that, as a principal rule, the right to such judicial review is restricted to one single review. However, a prime requisite for limiting the right to a judicial review to one single review is that the date of the review should close to the date of release so as to ensure that the review covers circumstances that are relevant at the date of the proposed return. Hence the time limit for submitting a request for review being set at six months, at the earliest, and two months, at the latest, prior to the date of the expected enforcement of the expulsion order. If the alien has been prevented from submitting the request in a time manner because of illness or for other reasons not attributable to the alien, the court may decide to disregard the time limit. It is up to the courts to ensure that the set time limits are observed. If it is uncertain whether the return of the alien can be enforced within the next six months, the courts should reject the case. 7.5 While acknowledging that the clear main rule is that an alien can only have his case reviewed once, under section 50 of the Aliens Act, in view of the requisites for limiting the access to review and the decision of the Supreme Court of 30 May 2011, the State party maintains that in cases where several years have passed since the review under section 50, as in the present case, the alien will be entitled to have the matter of revocation of an expulsion decision reviewed again pursuant to that same provision. The State party indicates that, according to the information available, the author has not requested a second review. 7.6 Against that background, the State party maintains that the Danish rules are in compliance with its international obligations, including under article 13 of the Covenant. 7.7 With regard to the author’s request to the Committee to consider whether the Eastern High Court decision of 22 January 2008 complies with articles 2, 23 and 24 of the Covenant, when considering his present circumstances, the State party observes that, according to case law from the European Court of Human Rights, the question as to whether the applicant had a private and family life within the meaning of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be determined by the Court in the light of the position at the time when the impugned measure was adopted.13 When the complaint relates to a subsequent decision refusing to lift the original decision, the Court will take the date of 13 12 European Court of Human Rights, Boujlifa v. France, application No. 25404/94, judgment of 21 October 1997, para. 36.