Case summaries
Same-sex couples are not excluded from the ambit of the Convention’s family life and cohabiting is not a pre-requisite of establishing family life.
A difference in treatment between persons in relevantly similar positions has occurred in this case since the Croatian Aliens Act has made no provision for same-sex couples seeking a residence permit to join their respective partner, whereas it did contain provisions relating to married and unmarried different-sex couples. The applicant had, therefore, experienced a difference in treatment based on her sexual orientation which had not been justified with weight reasons by the Croatian government. Croatia had, thus, violated Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8.
The Upper Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to immediately admit four vulnerable Syrians from an unofficial migrant camp in France to the United Kingdom in order to be reunited with refugee family members during the examination their asylum applications. Although they had not applied for asylum in France or been subject to Dublin procedures, the particular circumstances meant that failing to do so would lead to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life.
When assessing the legal requirement that a Belgian spouse has to prove that he/she has means of subsistence which are “stable, regular and sufficient”, the applicant’s financial means can be taken into consideration [because according to art. 221.1 and 2 of the Civil Code the Belgian spouse is capable of legally disposing of the applicant’s financial means].
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 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 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the procedure for examining applications for family reunification had to contain a number of elements, having regard to the applicants’ refugee status on the one hand and the best interests of the children on the other, so that their interests as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention from the point of view of procedural requirements were safeguarded.
ECtHR majority rules that the temporary return of a homosexual man from Sweden to Libya would not violate Article 3 as short term concealment of sexual orientation would be tolerable in order to reduce risk of persecution.
The Court examined the complaints of a Somali national concerning her detention conditions in Malta (Article 3), which deteriorated her mental health and resulted in inhuman and degrading treatment. She further alleged that her detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, 2 and 4 (Right to liberty and security).
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.