Case Law

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

Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or stateless person 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 be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of that provision.

12 April 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

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 | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Germany - Switzerland