Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

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

Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained about their placement and retention in the closed centre for aliens, alleging, inter alia, that they were illegal. Violation of Article 5 § 1 f) – in respect of the applicant children, concerning their retention in the closed centre

26 March 2020 | 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): Children's rights - Expulsion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Germany - Poland - Russian Federation

in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State’s obligations will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest.

1 March 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): Expulsion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Nigeria

27 January 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements - Freedom of expression | Countries: Germany - Türkiye

25 March 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Jordan

Admisibility decision.

20 November 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Freedom of movement - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Nigeria

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

28 June 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Türkiye

16 October 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Peru

11 July 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Germany - Sierra Leone