ECtHR - Dabo v. Sweden, Application No. 12510/18, 18/01/2024

Facts:

Mr. Dabo, a Syrian citizen, left his country for Jordan in the summer of 2013. His wife and five children joined him in Jordan and continued to reside there under UNHCR protection. After shortly returning to Syria to work in a hospital, the applicant travelled via Turkey to Greece where he arrived in April 2014. In Greece, he married his second wife a few months later and the couple entered Sweden where they applied for asylum. They were granted permanent residence permits and refugee status under the Swedish Aliens Act.

On 20 July 2016, Sweden enforced the Temporary Restrictions Act (2016:752). One of the requirements introduced by this Act was a maintenance requirement for family reunification, with an exemption from this requirement only if family members applied within three months of the refugee status being granted.

More than eight months after the applicant had been granted refugee status, his first wife and five children lodged applications for residence permits at the Swedish Embassy in Jordan. At the time, the applicant’s situation was deemed insufficient for the entire family. The applicant had claimed that his first wife contacted the Swedish Embassy in already in April 2016.

The Migration Agency refused the applications, appeal was dismissed by the Migration Court, and leave to appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal was refused.

Decision & reasoning:

The Court reiterated its established case law under Article 8 ECHR on family reunification by stating that states have a right to control immigration and are not generally obliged to allow family reunification. The Court thereby reiterated that states must strike a fair balance between immigration control and the individual’s right to family life in these cases. In this context, the Court emphasized that there is a broad European consensus that refugees should benefit from more favourable family reunification procedures as they are often in a particularly vulnerable position. The central question was therefore whether Sweden struck a fair balance, within its margin of appreciation.

The Court attached significant importance to the fact that the Swedish rules were based on the EU Family Reunification Directive, especially Article 12(1). This article allows Member States to require sufficient income and accommodation when an application is submitted outside the three-month period. The Court therefore accepted the legitimacy of the Swedish exemption period. The Court also stressed that an individualised assessment of the applicant’s circumstances by the Swedish authorities had taken place as the domestic courts considered his income, housing situation, future employment prospects, and family circumstances. The Court continued its reasoning by stressing that the refusal is not permanent as the applicant could submit a new application once he met the maintenance requirements. This aspect was important in the proportionality assessment, because the applicant was a qualified doctor participating in integration programmes. The Court considered that he thus had realistic prospects of obtaining suitable employment and accommodation.

Outcome:

The Court concluded that Sweden had not exceeded its margin of appreciation and unanimously found no violation of Article 8 ECHR.

Observations/comments:

This summary was written by Warre Roelants during her participation in the Migration Law Clinic of Gent University.