Case summaries
When balancing the applicant’s right to family reunification and the protection of the rights of others in relation to the welfare of the state, which would be lessened if the application for family reunification were approved, the Supreme Court favours the latter since according to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, countries enjoy a certain margin of appreciation when protecting the right to family life.
The first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the Family Reunification Directive allows the imposition of integration measures of Third Country Nationals in principle. However the general principle of proportionality requires integration measures to actually fulfil the objective of integrating TCNs and not delimiting the possibility of family reunion.
Member States must therefore consider the individual circumstances of the applicant which can lead to dispensing with the integration exam where family reunification would otherwise be excessively difficult.
This case related to two third country nationals who were ordered to leave the Netherlands, without being granted a period for voluntary departure, on the basis that they constituted a risk to public policy.
The CJEU gave guidance on the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Returns Directive, stating that the concept of a ‘risk to public policy’ should be interpreted strictly with an individualised assessment of the personal conduct of the person. Suspicion or conviction for a criminal offence was a relevant consideration. However, it was unnecessary to conduct a new assessment solely relating to the period for voluntary departure where the person had already been found to constitute a risk to public policy.
The State is obliged to adopt legislation which allows the refugee to actually exercise the right to respect for family life in its territory. Under Article 53(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia the scope of family life firstly includes the nuclear family and secondly, where specific factual circumstances dictate, members of the family who are not nuclear but who are similar or perform the same function.
The legislator limited the right to family reunification by enacting an exhaustive definition of eligible family members for reunification, excluding any other form of family unity. According to the Constitutional Court, the legislator disproportionately restricted the right of refugees to respect for family life and violated the right of the appellant under the Article 53(3) of the Constitution.
A national law which requires the sponsor and his/her spouse to have reached the age of 21 by the date on which the application for family reunification is submitted (rather than by the date on which the decision on the application is made) is consistent with Art. 4 (5) of the Family Reunion Directive (Directive 2003/86/EC)
The International Protection Act's (ZMZ) definition of family members is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia nor with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ZMZ does not give the body that decides on international protection the discretion to broaden the circle of family members in special circumstances, nor are such obligations or discretions given by EU legislation or the ECHR.
The Council for Alien Law Litigation confirmed that those who enjoy subsidiary protection are equivalent to recognised refugees, for the purposes of family reunification. This means that they are exempted from additional conditions in relation to housing, health insurance, and means of subsistence provided that the application for family reunification is submitted within one year and the family ties existed before the arrival in Belgium of the reuniting person (who enjoys subsidiary protection). This is despite the fact that those who enjoy subsidiary protection do not fall within the scope of application of the Family Reunification Directive.
Applicant M was a citizen of Algeria who applied for a residence document in Finland on grounds of family relations. He/she was married to a sponsor called L and they had a joint minor child. L had another child from a previous marriage. A prerequisite for M to be granted a residence document was for him/her to have sufficient income, which he/she did not have. There was also the question of whether denying a residence document breached the Union citizen’s rights under Article 20 of the TFEU. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that denying a residence document did not breach the Unio citizen’s rights. In addition, there were no factors which would support deviating from the means of support prerequisite as stated in the law.
In principle both parents may claim the right to join an unaccompanied minor refugee.
This right to join a child will only apply up until the point that the latter comes of age.
Parents may present a claim for a visa by means of an application for temporary legal protection before the child comes of age.
In family reunification cases it is only possible to use DNA testing to verify family ties in situations where serious doubts persist concerning kinship after other forms of evidence have been presented.