UN chief welcomes event reuniting families on the Korean Peninsula
21 August 2018 | Publisher: UN News Service | Document type: Country News |
World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - United Kingdom : South Asians
August 2018 | Publisher: Minority Rights Group International | Document type: Country Reports |
Judgement FAC F-3045/2016 of 25 Jul. 2018
This case harmonized Switzerland's approach to family reunification with the the decision of the European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) in Hadzhieva v. Bulgaria from February 1 2018, n° 45285/12. The right to family reunification cannot expire if it existed, according to national or international law, at the time when the application was submitted. 25 July 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: 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 |
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 |
The Queen (on the application of MS) (a child by his litigation friend MAS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
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) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report Universal Periodic Review: Mexico
July 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Compilations |
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 |
Le regroupement familial des bénéficiaires d'une protection internationale en Belgique
June 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
Le regroupement familial des bénéficiaires d'une protection internationale en Belgique
Constats et recommandations
June 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |