Case summaries

Even if an unaccompanied minor refugee has entered the country together with a brother (sister) of full age, Art 6 Dublin II Regulation is applicable to the former and within the meaning of the judgment of the CJEU of 06.06.2013, case C-648/11, the relevant country of the asylum application is responsible. With regard to the accompanying brother (sister) of full age, use should be made of the right to assume the examination owing to the family connection in order to avoid a violation of Art 8 ECHR.

The Immigration Service had rejected applications for residence permits based on family ties, because the Applicants had not been heard in person. Conducting an oral hearing with the Applicants was not mandatory for establishing the requirements for family reunification. The refusal by the Immigration Service to conduct the hearing had in practice lead to the rejection of the applications for residence permits. The Administrative Court considered that the conduct of the authorities had caused undue harm to the Applicants.

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.

This judgment overturned the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on examination of a manifestly unfounded application, on refusal to accord refugee status, provide subsidiary protection or grant a permit for tolerated stay, and on deportation from the Republic of Poland

In the proceedings, the foreigner stressed that he had left his country of origin as a child and currently has no family there, and that his entire family resides legally in Poland (they were granted a permit for tolerated stay in refugee proceedings). As the decision on refusal of protection is linked to the decision on deportation, refusal of protection would result in the Applicant being unable to see his family for many years. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the decision on deportation constituted interference in his family life, since it would result in him being separated from his family.

The Court found that the authority should properly examine and address the allegations made by the Applicant and thus consider the foreigner’s individual and family circumstances in the context of the possible application of Article 8 of the Convention, including the length of his stay in Poland, the possible obstacles to him living in his country of origin, and the likely effects on the Applicant’s family if the family was to be separated by the Applicant moving to another country.

The Constitutional Court revoked the decision by the Asylum Court, as it violated the right of the Applicant to respect for his family life in accordance with Art 8 of the ECHR. In particular, the reference by the Asylum Court to the possibility of maintaining the relationship with his one-year old child (with asylum status in Austria) by means of modern media (Internet, Skype, telephone,…) was incomprehensible.

A beneficiary of refugee status sought family reunification unsuccessfully for her niece and nephew who she referred to as her own children; who had been orphaned; and whom she was not capable of formally adopting owing to the absence of available procedures in Somalia or where they were living in Ethiopia. The children had attained the age of majority after the Application had been made, but prior to a decision. The Minister refused family reunification on the basis that they were not dependent.

The Applicant was successful in her Judicial Review as the Court found that the Minister had erred in restricting the assessment of dependency to the narrow issue of being financially dependent. Dependency should take into account all relevant social, economic, personal, physical, emotional and cultural bonds between the refugee and family member being considered. Furthermore the Minister did not conduct a proper investigation as to what would be objectively required to amount to dependency, and appeared to carry out “no more than an arbitrary evaluation based on no identified criteria”.

This case concerns the interpretation and application of Article 15 of the Dublin Regulation, commonly known as the humanitarian clause, in a specific set of circumstances where the asylum seeker concerned has a daughter in law who is seriously ill, and on account of cultural factors, at risk or has grandchildren below the age of majority, who, as a result of the daughter-in-law’s illness are in need of care and the asylum seeker concerned is both willing and able to support them. The CJEU held in circumstances such as those Article 15(2) must be interpreted so as to make that Member State responsible for the asylum seekers claim. This is applicable even if the Member State which was responsible pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of the Regulation did not make that request.

An Iraqi man, previously a member of the Ba'ath Party, was granted refugee status. There were not found to be any grounds for exclusion. The man's son was also granted refugee status, with reference to the principle of family unity.

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 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.