Last Updated: Thursday, 24 October 2019, 17:23 GMT

Human rights / Right to family life

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 844 results
UNHCR-Stellungnahme zur vorgeschlagenen Einschränkung des Anspruchs auf Familienzusammenführung für Personen mit vorübergehendem Schutzstatus

1 May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) (Claimant) - and - Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) - and – (1) Residential Landlords Association (2) Equality and Human Rights Commission (3) Liberty (Intervenors)

i) an Order pursuant to s.4 Human Rights Act 1998 declaring that sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 are incompatible with Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR; and 56 ii) An Order declaring that a decision by the Defendant to commence the Scheme represented by sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland without further evaluation of its efficacy and discriminatory impact would be irrational and would constitute a breach of s. 149 Equality Act 2010.

1 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Right to family life | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Family reunification - Refugee identity documents - Right to family life | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

Family Reunification of Refugees and Migrants in the Council of Europe Member States

11 October 2018 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations

Family Reunification of Refugees and Migrants in the Council of Europe Member States

11 October 2018 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations

Arrêt F-3045/2016 du 25 juillet 2018

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Cameroon - Switzerland

Arrêt F-3045/2016 du 25 juillet 2018

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Cameroon - Switzerland

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Netherlands

CASE OF BISTIEVA AND OTHERS v. POLAND (Application no. 75157/14)

violation of article 8 - child’s best interests cannot be confined to keeping the family together - detention is mesure of last resort -consideration should be given to alternative measures - detention of minors called for greater speed and diligence on the part of the authorities

10 April 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Poland - Russian Federation

Equal Citizens, Thriving Families, Stronger Societies: Realizing Gender-Equal Nationality Rights in the Middle East-North Africa Region

5 April 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

Search Refworld