Case Law

The concept of a ‘direct descendant’ of a citizen of the Union referred to in Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as not including a child who has been placed in the permanent legal guardianship of a citizen of the Union under the Algerian kafala system, because that placement does not create any parent-child relationship between them. However, it is for the competent national authorities to facilitate the entry and residence of such a child as one of the other family members of a citizen of the Union pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of that directive, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by carrying out a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the current and relevant circumstances of the case which takes account of the various interests in play and, in particular, of the best interests of the child concerned. In the event that it is established, following that assessment, that the child and its guardian, who is a citizen of the Union, are called to lead a genuine family life and that that child is dependent on its guardian, the requirements relating to the fundamental right to respect for family life, combined with the obligation to take account of the best interests of the child, demand, in principle, that that child be granted a right of entry and residence in order to enable it to live with its guardian in his or her host Member State.

26 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Adoption - Family reunification | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.

13 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

I suggest that the Court of Justice should reply to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the following terms: (1) Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that a child cannot be classed as a ‘direct descendant’ of a Union citizen where the child is only in the legal guardianship of that Union citizen under the institution of recueil legal (kafala) that applies in the Republic of Algeria. That child may, however, fall within the category of ‘other family members’ if the other requirements are satisfied and following completion of the procedure laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, in which case the host Member State must facilitate his or her entry and residence in that Member State in accordance with national legislation, having weighed the protection of family life and the defence of the child’s best interests. (2) Articles 27 and 35 of Directive 2004/38 can be applied in any of the situations referred to in that directive where grounds of public policy, public security or public health apply, and in the event of abuse of rights or fraud. (3) In applying Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the authorities of the host Member State may enquire into whether sufficient regard was had, in the procedure for awarding guardianship or custody, to the best interests of the child.

26 February 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Adoption - Family reunification | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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

1. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection’s right to family reunification, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 12(1) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee’s family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules provided that that legislation: – lays down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable; – lays down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and – ensures that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the directive.

7 November 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Netherlands

Denial of humanitarian visa to child taken in under kafalah (fostering arrangement) by a Belgian-Moroccan couple

27 September 2018 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Family reunification | Countries: Belgium - Morocco

The right to family reunion derived from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not expire when the child who could benefit from it reaches the age of majority during the procedure. This easing of the case law, which takes into account recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, also has procedural implications

25 July 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Cameroon - Switzerland

The right to family reunion derived from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not expire when the child who could benefit from it reaches the age of majority during the procedure. This easing of the case law, which takes into account recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, also has procedural implications

25 July 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Cameroon - Switzerland

whether MAS, who is lawfully present in the UK, is the brother of MS, an unaccompanied minor who has made an asylum application in France; whether the UK has a duty of investigation once it receives a take charge request and the scope of any such duty

19 July 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(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