News

On 8 September 2026, the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in A.A. v. the Netherlands (Application no. 7481/23), concerning the refusal of family reunification with five of the applicant’s minor children born of his second and third polygamous marriages.

The applicant, a Yemeni national with refugee status in the Netherlands, had contracted three polygamous marriages in Yemen and had thirteen children. The Dutch authorities granted family reunification with his first wife and their eight children, but refused it in respect of the five children born of his second and third marriages on the grounds that polygamy was contrary to public order in the Netherlands. The authorities found that the children lived with their mothers in Türkiye where they had access to housing, education and healthcare. The applicant complained that the refusal violated his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 ECHR.

 In its assessment, the Court reiterated that the protection of family life applies to both “legitimate” and “illegitimate” families, and that the concept of family is not limited to marriage-based relationships. It therefore accepted that family life existed between the applicant and his five children, irrespective of the fact that his second and third polygamous marriages were not recognised in the Netherlands.

The Court then considered whether the Netherlands had complied with its positive obligation to allow the requested family reunification, rather than whether there had been an interference with the applicant’s family life. It noted the strong European consensus prohibiting polygamy and that the applicant had chosen to maintain all three marriages despite having been given the possibility of regularising his situation under Dutch law. It therefore considered that Member States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether to allow family reunification between fathers and children born of polygamous marriages.

Within that margin of appreciation, the Court found that the Dutch authorities had carried out an individual assessment of the applicant’s circumstances and balanced his right to family life against the interests of immigration control and public order. Although there were ''insurmountable obstacles'' to the family living together in Yemen, the children lived with their mothers in Türkiye where they had access to education and healthcare, and there was no evidence that they faced violence there. They had no ties to the Netherlands other than their relationship with the applicant, who could maintain contact with and visit them, and no particular dependence on him beyond financial support. It further held that, while the best interests of the children must be given significant weight, they do not in themselves require their admission to a Contracting State.

The Court therefore concluded that the domestic authorities had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect his family life and the State’s interests in enforcing immigration controls and upholding public order, and found no violation of Article 8 ECHR.