Case summaries
The right to family reunification involving Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the territory of the Member State of which the children are nationals and changes in the composition of the families following the mothers’ remarriage to third country nationals and the birth of children of those marriages who are also third country nationals. The case involves the right to respect for family life and how to take into consideration the children’s best interests.
Despite his family ties, the Applicant was denied an extension to his residence document as he was regarded as a threat to public order and security.
The question was what emphasis had to be placed on the Union membership of the Applicant’s spouse and child of whom they had joint custody.
The expulsion of an asylum seeker after asylum proceedings lasting approximately eight years without any culpable delay by the Applicant, during which he established a family and also integrated well in other respects, infringes his right to a private and family life.
The decision to expel an orphaned minor to Poland when he had a legal guardian in Austria gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR. The Asylum Court made its decision without providing clear reasons. The applicant’s family ties in the home country and in Austria must be considered, regardless of the duration of the applicant’s stay in Austria. The sovereignty clause must be applied when there is a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR.
It is the duty of the administrative authority to establish all of the facts that are important in a procedure, and thus to complete the background information for a decision to the extent that it forms a reliable basis for the decision-making itself.
The administrative authority is not relieved of this duty even with regard to the provisions of Section 34(3) of Act No 71/1967 Coll. on administrative procedure (hereinafter the “Administrative Procedure Code“), according to which the participants in a procedure must put forward the evidence that is known to them in support of their claims.
Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and asylum seekers can marry even in the absence of official documentation stating there are no impediments to matrimony in situations where documentation provided shows that the conditions for marriage have been met (age and single status).
The Asylum Court rejected an appeal against the decision to expel the applicant, who has a medical condition, and her daughter to Italy. The situation in Italy was assumed to be in accordance with the Reception Conditions Directive and there was, therefore, no real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR. There was no violation of Art 8 ECHR as the applicant’s son had been living in Austria for 10 years, which meant there was no family life worth protecting.
The authority issuing residence permits did not issue a residence permit based on family ties because it suspected that the Applicants had entered a so-called marriage of convenience. In this case the Court examined whether the authorities could refuse to issue a residence permit, when the requirements for a permit were met, if they suspected that the Applicant had intensions to evade the rules on entry into the country.
After six and a half years of single asylum proceedings, the Applicants, a family with three children who were well-integrated in Austria, , were expelled by the Asylum Court to Armenia. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision on the grounds of a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reasons for this were primarily that the integration of the children was given insufficient weight.
In this case the Tribunal considered the situation of refugee’s fiancé(e)s, who are not covered by the provisions relating to spouses and children. In general their exclusion is unlikely to be proportionate and their claim should succeed under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).