EDAL case summaries
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.
The parents and minor siblings of a Syrian national, who was recognised as a refugee, cannot claim refugee status in terms of international protection for family members, if the beneficiary, although a minor when he was registered as an asylum applicant, was no longer a minor at the time of the court hearing.
The official date of an Islamic marriage contracted in Syria needs to be determined with reference to Syrian law. An official notice by the Dutch Foreign Affairs Ministry’s states that “in the opinion of the Syrian authorities, the date set by the Sharia Court will be the official date of marriage.”
If according to the marriage certificate issued by the Sharia Court the marriage predates a sponsor’s entry into the Netherlands, it is sufficiently established that a valid marriage existed before this entry, also when registration before the Sharia...
The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their...
§ 104 para. 13 S. 1 of AufenthG (Residence Law) impedes the claim of a person with subsidiary protection for the assessment of a case of non-refoulment referring to the situation in the state of origin according to § 60 Abs. 5 AufenthG and Art. 3 ECHR in order to enable family reunion due to the lack of a defensible interest.
The imposition of a "one-off" expedited procedure in France for unaccompanied children wishing to reunite with their family in the UK fell within the framework of the Dublin Regulation. The failure by the UK Secretary of State to give full effect to the Dublin Regulation (most notably Article 17) and the Commission’s Implementing Regulation was unlawful and as a consequence the applicant was deprived of a series of procedural safeguards and protection.
In addition the applicant’s procedural rights have been violated by virtue of the procedural deficiencies and shortcomings...
The Federal Supreme Court rules that the separate detention of families with minor children and the placement in a children’s home violates the right to family life in Art. 8 ECHR, if less intrusive measures than detention have not been taken into consideration.
Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters. However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision.
Judicial review to challenge the failure/refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SoS”) to determine the application of the applicant’s spouse and two youngest children for family reunification in the UK on the following grounds: a failure to apply the SoS published policy; irrationality; breach of all the family members’ rights under Art. 8 ECHR; and (regarding the two children in the UK), breach of the duties owed under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).
The Upper Tribunal found that:
1) the Home Office family...
Regarding the protection of the right to family life in asylum procedures, same-sex partnerships are in a comparable situation with heterosexual relationships. A distinction between the applicants for international protection based on sexual orientation is not in compliance with the Constitution. Article 16b(1) of IPA, which does not consider persons of a same-sex living in established partnership as family members, is inconsistent with the right to non-discriminatory treatment in the exercise of the right to family life.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Family member filterFamily member
- Family unity (right to) 28
- Family reunification 17
- Best interest of the child 15
- Child Specific Considerations 10
- Dependant (Dependent person) 9
- Dublin Transfer 9
- Responsibility for examining application 8
- Refugee Status 6
- Effective access to procedures 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Unaccompanied minor 4
- Visa 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Detention 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Request to take back 3
- Return 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Delay 2
- Discrimination 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Integration measures 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Sponsor 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Religion 1
- Safe third country 1
- Standard of proof 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 7
- Somalia 4
- Eritrea 3
- Russia 3
- Syria 3
- Algeria 2
- Nigeria 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Armenia 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Brazil 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Croatia 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Kosovo 1
- Kuwait 1
- Malawi 1
- Mongolia 1
- Morocco 1
- Pakistan 1
- Philippines 1
- Serbia 1
- United Kingdom 1
- United States 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 8
- United Kingdom 6
- France 3
- Slovenia 3
- Finland 2
- Germany 2
- Ireland 2
- Poland 2
- Netherlands 1
- Sweden 1
- Switzerland 1