Case Law

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 2, 20, 23 and 31 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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), and of Article 25(6) and Article 33(2)(a) 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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

22 February 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

194. Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court is not satisfied, notwithstanding their margin of appreciation, that the authorities of the respondent State, when subjecting the applicant to a three-year waiting period before he could apply for family reunification with his wife, struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in being reunited with his wife in Denmark and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration with a view to protect the economic well-being of the country, to ensure the effective integration of those granted protection and to preserve social cohesion (see paragraph 165 above). 195. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

9 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Denmark - Syrian Arab Republic

The court ruled that states must take into account circumstances arising after a transfer decision. See the decision for more details.

15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Belgium

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

The TAF decided in a principle judgment that the right to family life should be taken into account in a Dublin procedure, even if the family member in Switzerland does not have a secure right of residence.

25 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

22 September 2020 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Finland - Iraq

This decision was about the granting of family asylum to a woman of Tibetan ethnicity. It represent a landmark judgment of the FAC acknowledging the existence of a new specific circumstance that goes against the granting of family asylum. The FAC overrules the decision of the SEM to refuse family asylum and refers the matter back to the SEM for further investigation and reassessment.

1 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Tibetan | Countries: China - Switzerland

19 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Ireland: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Derivative status - Family reunification | Countries: Ireland - Somalia

The question at the heart of this appeal concerns the breadth of the definition of the word “child” in the context of family reunification as provided for in the Act of 2015.

9 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Ireland: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Children's rights - Family reunification | Countries: Cameroon - Ireland

20 December 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Denmark