UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
Opinion of Advocate General Hogan, delivered on 25 March 2021, Case C‑768/19, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. SE
In the circumstances of a case such as that in the main proceedings, the relevant point in time for assessing the ‘minor’ status of the beneficiary of international protection pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) 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, is the date on which his father makes an application for international protection pursuant to Article 6(1) 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, provided that the beneficiary of international protection has applied for that protection prior to reaching the age of majority and both family members in question are present in the same Member State prior to beneficiary of international protection reaching the age of majority. In accordance with the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, the concept of ‘family members’ in respect of a father of a beneficiary of international protection is dependent solely on the three conditions, namely that the family already existed in the country of origin, that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection are present in the same Member State in relation to the application for international protection and that the beneficiary of international protection is an unmarried minor. The third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95 does not require the resumption between the family members in question of family life within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If an unmarried minor pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95 on reaching the age of majority expressly indicates in writing that he or she does not wish to maintain family unity, then the purpose of Article 23 of Directive 2011/95 cannot be achieved and the competent national authorities are not required to grant to family members the corresponding benefits under Articles 24 to 35 of that directive. The rights of family members pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95 do not persist for an unlimited period of time. The right of family members pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95 to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of that directive persists after the beneficiary of subsidiary protection reaches the age of majority, for the duration of the period of validity of the residence permit granted to them in accordance with Article 24(2) of that directive. 18 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
UNHCR Stellungnahme zum Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Familiennachzugs zu subsidiär Schutzberechtigten (Familiennachzugsneuregelungsgesetz)
3 May 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
Judgment FAC E-1998/2016 of 21 Dec. 2017
The court ruled that asylum-seekers have the right to challenge decisions of the SEM if they applied the criteria for the allocation of responsibility of the Dublin III Regulation incorrectly. 21 January 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Germany - Switzerland |
2 BvR 1758/17
11 October 2017 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Family reunification - Residence permits / Residency - Visas | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic |
OVG 3 S 106.16
22 December 2016 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Iraq |
OVG 3 S 106.16
22 December 2016 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Germany |
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beschluss vom 12. Oktober 2012 - 2 BvR 748/13
20 June 2016 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Nigeria |
OVG 3 S 95.15
21 December 2015 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Germany |
OVG 3 S 95.15
21 December 2015 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family law - Family reunification - Yazīdī | Countries: Germany - Iraq |
Human rights and family courts
12 November 2012 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations |