Immigration law / Family reunification

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Denmark - Syrian Arab Republic

October 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

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

21 January 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

16 May 2017 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) | Document type: Country Reports

28 September 2016 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Regional Reports

15 August 2016 | Publisher: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Concluding Observations

9 May 2016 | Publisher: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) | Document type: Annual Reports