You are here
Home › Family reunification ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Inadmissible application, Subsidiary Protection, Visa
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
Date: 23-03-2020
Keywords: Dependant (Dependent person), Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Refugee Status, Sponsor
Article 10(2) of Directive 2003/86 allows Member States to define autonomously the nature of the relationship of dependence between the sponsor and the family member not referred in art. 4, as long as the national law have regard of all the relevant circumstances of the refugee’s situation through a case-by-case approach.
Date: 12-12-2019
Country of Decision: Germany
Keywords: Family reunification, Visa
Applications for a visa for family reunification with subsidiary protection beneficiaries must be treated as particularly urgent if the holder of the right of residence is about to reach the age of 18. The Immigration Office must ensure that such applications are processed preferentially and expeditiously.
Date: 26-11-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Family member, Family reunification, Residence document, Sponsor, Visa
The principle of effectiveness and the objectives of the Family Reunification Directive preclude domestic legislation that foresees the automatic issue of an entry and residence permit for family reunification on the sole ground that the time limit to decide on the application has expired without having established the substantial requirements for obtaining such a permit, e.g. family links.
Date: 20-11-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Family reunification, Health (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
Detention conditions in Greek police stations and living conditions in Idomeni Camp in northern Greece for five unaccompanied children were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. A further violation was found in respect of Article 5 § 1 regarding the “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in police stations.
Date: 13-06-2019
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application
There is a case of urgent necessity concerning interim measures according to § 123 VwGO obliging a Member State to accept a take charge request regarding the asylum applications of family members of a person entitled to subsidiary protection in that state when the decision on an asylum application of these family members is imminent in the requesting state.
Date: 27-03-2019
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family reunification, Responsibility for examining application
Neither Austrian law nor the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation provide for legal remedies against a Member State’s rejection of a request for admission. The Dublin Regulation provides for a remonstration procedure between the Member States concerned in the event of a rejection, whereby after expiry of the remonstration period the requesting Member State is finally responsible for examining the application for international protection. A later agreement after the remonstration period has expired cannot establish any responsibility.
Date: 26-03-2019
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Personal circumstances of applicant, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Sponsor, Vulnerable person
The discretionary clause in Art. 17 II Dublin-III regulation might under certain circumstances oblige the member states to take charge of an applicant. This can be particularly the case, if the competence of the member state under chapter III of the Dublin-III regulation would not be given because of a deadline expiry the applicant had no influence on.
Date: 15-03-2019
Country of Applicant: China
Keywords: Family reunification, Residence document
Residence permits obtained in the context of family reunification and long-term resident status, under Directives 2003/86 and 2003/109, may be withdrawn if they were issued on the basis of falsified documents, even if the holders were unaware of the fraud committed.
Date: 14-03-2019
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Family reunification, Family unity (right to)
Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for family reunification lodged by a sponsor in favour of a minor of whom she is allegedly the guardian solely on the grounds of lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the sponsor’s inability to explain the absence of such evidence being deemed implausible on the basis of general country of origin information.
Authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor,...
Date: 13-03-2019
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Family reunification filterFamily reunification
- Family unity (right to) 37
- Family member 35
- Best interest of the child 18
- Dependant (Dependent person) 11
- Dublin Transfer 11
- Refugee Status 8
- Sponsor 8
- Unaccompanied minor 8
- Visa 8
- Responsibility for examining application 7
- Subsidiary Protection 7
- Request that charge be taken 6
- Vulnerable person 6
- Effective access to procedures 5
- Child Specific Considerations 4
- Discrimination 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Material reception conditions 4
- Relevant Documentation 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Detention 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Individual assessment 3
- More favourable provisions 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Personal interview 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Accommodation centre 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Residence document 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Delay 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Race 1
- Religion 1
- Return 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 9
- Syria 9
- Eritrea 7
- Somalia 7
- Iraq 4
- Russia 3
- Algeria 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Cameroon 1
- China 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Djibouti 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Ghana 1
- Iran 1
- Kosovo 1
- Kuwait 1
- Lebanon 1
- Libya 1
- Malawi 1
- Morocco 1
- Nigeria 1
- Philippines 1
- Rwanda 1
- Serbia 1
- Thailand 1
- Ukraine 1
- United States 1
- Vietnam 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 9
- United Kingdom 6
- Finland 4
- Slovenia 4
- Austria 3
- Italy 3
- Belgium 2
- Luxembourg 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Denmark 1
- France 1
- Greece 1
- Ireland 1
- Netherlands 1
- Poland 1
- Slovakia 1
- Spain 1
- Sweden 1
