XXXX contre Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, C-483/20
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 2, 20, 23 and 31 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), and of Article 25(6) and Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60). 22 February 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL PIKAMÄE, in Case C‑483/20 XXXX
v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium))
1. Migratory journeys are often the result of a combination of two elements: chance and necessity. In the case before the Court, a Syrian national, after travelling through Libya and Turkey, arrived in Austria, where, out of necessity, he lodged an application for international protection. After obtaining refugee status, he went to Belgium to be reunited with his two children, one of whom is a minor, and there lodged a new application for international protection, which was declared inadmissible in view of the prior recognition granted in the first Member State. 2. It is against that background that the question arises, to my knowledge for the first time, whether, in particular, the fundamental right to respect for family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the child’s best interests set out in Article 24(2) of the Charter, can override the inadmissibility mechanism for applications for international protection laid down in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU. (2) 30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
Conclusion de l'Avocat general Wahl dans l'affaire C-635/17 E. contre Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Propose a la cour par le A.G. : L’article 11, paragraphe 2, de la directive 2003/86/CE du Conseil, du 22 septembre 2003, relative au droit au regroupement familial, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il ne s’oppose pas à une législation nationale en vertu de laquelle le bénéficiaire d’une protection internationale est tenu, aux fins de l’examen de sa demande de regroupement familial, d’expliquer d’une manière plausible les raisons pour lesquelles il se trouve dans l’incapacité de fournir des pièces justificatives officielles attestant de l’existence d’un lien familial, pour autant que l’autorité nationale compétente apprécie ces explications au regard non seulement des informations pertinentes, tant générales que particulières, concernant la situation dans le pays d’origine de ce dernier, mais également de la situation particulière dans laquelle celui-ci se trouve. 29 November 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Children's rights - Family reunification - Refugee identity documents - Right to family life | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands |
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI in case C-380/17 Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K, B joined party H. Y., (2) Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(1) The Court has jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the referring court which relate to the interpretation of the provisions of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a case concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, where the provisions of that directive have been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status in national law. (2) The system provided for under Directive 2003/86 precludes a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the three-month period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1) of that directive, since that period cannot be regarded as a time bar and that application must be considered in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which require the Member States to examine applications for family reunification in the interests of the children concerned, with a view to promoting family life and preventing both the objective and the effectiveness of Directive 2003/86 from being undermined. In addition, the failure to have regard to the guiding principles of that directive in the event of the rejection of an application for family reunification for the purposes of Article 12 thereof because the three-month period provided for in the third subparagraph of paragraph 1 of that article is exceeded cannot be justified by the fact that the examination of another application submitted under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/86 would take account of those guiding principles. 27 June 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Netherlands |
Opinion of Advocate General Bot: A.S. v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
16 November 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Netherlands |
Conclusions de l'avocat Général M. Paolo Mengozzi: X, X c. État belge
7 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
Conclusions de l'Avocat Général M. Melchior Wathelet: Khaled Boudjlida contre Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques
25 June 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Non-refoulement - Regional instruments - Right to family life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Algeria - France |
Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v. Selver Saciri and others
27 February 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Children's rights - Reception - Regional instruments - Right to family life | Countries: Belgium |
O. and S. v. Maahanmuuttovirasto (C-356/11) and Maahanmuuttovirasto v. L. (C-357/11)
6 December 2012 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Côte d'Ivoire - Finland - Ghana |
Chakroun v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
4 March 2010 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Morocco - Netherlands |