Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
ECtHR - Dabo v. Sweden, Application No. 12510/18, 18/01/2024
Country of applicant: Syria

The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR took place as the requirements set out by the Swedish Temporary Restrictions Act were in line with the Family Reunification Directive and the European consensus. The balancing exercise was therefore performed correctly.

Date of decision: 18-01-2024
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 7,1.,Article 35,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Article 10
ECtHR - B.F. and Others v. Switzerland, Applications Nos. 13258/18, 15500/18, 57303/18 and 9078/20, 04/07/2023
Country of applicant: China, Eritrea

The Court found that the Swiss legislation sets stringent socio-economic requirements which in practice may render the right to family reunification impossible to exercise, in view of the personal situation of the sponsors residing in Switzerland and who cannot be expected to do the impossible to meet the conditions imposed on them.

Date of decision: 04-07-2023
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A,Article 5,Article 7,Article 8,1.,2.,3.,Article 11,1.,2.,Article 17,Article 14,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Article 9,Article 10
ECtHR - M.A. v. Denmark, Application no. 6697/18, 2021
Country of applicant: Syria

Except for very limited exceptions, the statutory three-year waiting period for family reunification of persons granted ‘temporary protection’ does not allow for an individualised assessment of the interest of family unity in light of the concrete situation of the persons concerned. Eventually the Court finds a violation of Article 8 of the Convention since the measure (whose goal is not otherwise challenged) had a disproportionate impact in the case at hand.

Date of decision: 09-07-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 1F(c),Art 28,Art 34,Art 1F(b),Art 1,Art 3,Art 1A,Art 1F(a),Art 32,Art 1C (5),Art 35.1,Art 1D,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27,Art 32.1,Art 33.1,Art 1C (6),Preamble,Art 35,Art 1C (3),Article 3,Article 8,1.,2.,Art 1A (1),Art 1B,Art 1B (1),Art 1B (2),Art 1C (1),Art 1C (2),Art 1C (4),Art 1E,Art 5,Art 6,Art 7,Art 8,Art 9,Art 10,Art 11,Art 12,Art 14,Art 18,Art 19,Art 20,Art 23,Art 25,Art 29,Art 30,Art 32.2,Art 32.3,Art 35.2,Art 36,Art 37,Art 1C,Art 12.1,Art 12.2,Art 16.1,Art 16.2,Art 16.3,Art 17.1,Art 17.2,Art 17.3,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Art 22.1,Art 22.2,Art 24.1,Art 24.2,Art 24.3,Art 24.4,Art 25.1,Art 25.2,Art 25.3,Art 25.4,Art 25.5,Art 28.1,Art 28.2,Art 29.1,Art 29.2,Art 30.1,Art 30.2,Art 31.1,Art 31.2,Art 33.2,Art 38,Art 39,Art 40,Art 41,Art 42,Art 43,Art 44,Art 45,Art 46,Schedule,Article 3,Article 14,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Article 2,Article 23,EN - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 - Art 288
CJEU - Case C-550/16 A and S, 12 April 2018
Country of applicant: Eritrea

An asylum applicant who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must still be regarded as a “minor” for the purposes of that provision.

 

Date of decision: 12-04-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 24,Article 22,Article 31,EN - Family Reunification Directive, Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003,Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (6),Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (10),Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 7,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,Article 12,Recital (18),Recital (19),Recital (21),Article 2,Article 13
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 30 May 2013, No. 103856
Country of applicant: Iraq

The Council for Alien Law Litigation confirmed that those who enjoy subsidiary protection are equivalent to recognised refugees, for the purposes of family reunification. This means that they are exempted from additional conditions in relation to housing, health insurance, and means of subsistence provided that the application for family reunification is submitted within one year and the family ties existed before the arrival in Belgium of the reuniting person (who enjoys subsidiary protection). This is despite the fact that those who enjoy subsidiary protection do not fall within the scope of application of the Family Reunification Directive.

Date of decision: 30-05-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 24.2,Article 3,Article 7,1.