Case summaries
The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR took place as the requirements set out by the Swedish Temporary Restrictions Act were in line with the Family Reunification Directive and the European consensus. The balancing exercise was therefore performed correctly.
The Court found that the Swiss legislation sets stringent socio-economic requirements which in practice may render the right to family reunification impossible to exercise, in view of the personal situation of the sponsors residing in Switzerland and who cannot be expected to do the impossible to meet the conditions imposed on them.
Except for very limited exceptions, the statutory three-year waiting period for family reunification of persons granted ‘temporary protection’ does not allow for an individualised assessment of the interest of family unity in light of the concrete situation of the persons concerned. Eventually the Court finds a violation of Article 8 of the Convention since the measure (whose goal is not otherwise challenged) had a disproportionate impact in the case at hand.
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
Article 10(2) of Directive 2003/86 allows Member States to define autonomously the nature of the relationship of dependence between the sponsor and the family member not referred in art. 4, as long as the national law have regard of all the relevant circumstances of the refugee’s situation through a case-by-case approach.
Applications for a visa for family reunification with subsidiary protection beneficiaries must be treated as particularly urgent if the holder of the right of residence is about to reach the age of 18. The Immigration Office must ensure that such applications are processed preferentially and expeditiously.
The principle of effectiveness and the objectives of the Family Reunification Directive preclude domestic legislation that foresees the automatic issue of an entry and residence permit for family reunification on the sole ground that the time limit to decide on the application has expired without having established the substantial requirements for obtaining such a permit, e.g. family links.
Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for family reunification lodged by a sponsor in favour of a minor of whom she is allegedly the guardian solely on the grounds of lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the sponsor’s inability to explain the absence of such evidence being deemed implausible on the basis of general country of origin information.
Authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor, including the difficulties they faced during and after their flight from their country.
Member States may require individuals who have been residing in the country by virtue of family reunification to pass a civic integration examination on the language and society of the country in order to be granted an autonomous residence permit. However, the requirements for passing this test must not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating integration.
The case concerned the conformity of integration requirements for residence permit applicants in Dutch law with Article 15 of Directive 2003/86, regarding autonomous residence permits. The CJEU held that it cannot be excluded that such a residence permit may be dependent on the successful completion of a civic integration examination on the language and society of that Member State. However, the connection of residence permits with integration frameworks cannot go beyond what is necessary for the objective of facilitating integration of third-country nationals.