You are here
Home › Family unity (right to) ›EDAL case summaries
In the case of an Afghan Shia Hazara applicant, the Belgian Council for Alien Litigation considered that the request for international protection was based on several sources of fear, which must be analysed in combination with each other, forming a cluster of concordant evidence.
The Council granted the applicant refugee status.
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.
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.
In order to examine prohibitions of deportation, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has to consider the case of each family member even in cases of family associations separately whether deportation prohibitions exist. In this case, the risk assessment must be based on the assumption that a nuclear family living together in the Federal Republic of Germany will return to its country of origin as a family unit. This also applies if individual family members have already been granted a protection status or if national deportation prohibitions have been...
It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.
The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and...
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.
The Algerian Kafala system does not create a parent/child relationship within the meaning of direct descendant under Directive 2004/38 but it does fall under the notion of other family members of Article 3(2)(a) of the same Directive. The State must therefore make a balanced and reasonable assessment which considering the age of the child, the closeness of the relationship whether the family have lived together; potential risk of exploitation/trafficking and the best interests of the child....
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.
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,...
Article 8 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation provides for a subjective right to family reunification, both for the applicant himself and for the family members present in the Member State responsible. This right is also justiciable to the extent that denial of transfer affects the rights to family unity and the best interest of an unaccompanied minor.
The expiry of the time limit for the submission of a take charge request pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation, as well as for the submission of a request to review the rejection of a take charge request (so-called "...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Family unity (right to) filterFamily unity (right to)
- Family member 40
- Family reunification 37
- Best interest of the child 31
- Dublin Transfer 28
- Responsibility for examining application 20
- Refugee Status 15
- Dependant (Dependent person) 14
- Vulnerable person 14
- Child Specific Considerations 12
- Personal circumstances of applicant 11
- Humanitarian considerations 10
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 10
- Request that charge be taken 10
- Return 10
- Unaccompanied minor 10
- Effective access to procedures 8
- Health (right to) 8
- Subsidiary Protection 8
- Discrimination 7
- Effective remedy (right to) 7
- Individual assessment 7
- Procedural guarantees 7
- Reception conditions 7
- Visa 7
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Request to take back 6
- Delay 5
- Inadmissible application 5
- Access to the labour market 4
- Country of origin information 4
- Sponsor 4
- Standard of proof 4
- Subsequent application 4
- Country of origin 3
- Detention 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Nationality 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Real risk 3
- Relevant Documentation 3
- Religion 3
- Residence document 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Safe third country 3
- Well-founded fear 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Accommodation centre 2
- Cessation of protection 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Education (right to) 2
- Final decision 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Integration measures 2
- Internal protection 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Personal interview 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Race 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Armed conflict 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Genocide 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Protection 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Serious harm 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Torture 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 11
- Syria 11
- Russia (Chechnya) 8
- Nigeria 7
- Russia 7
- Iraq 6
- Somalia 6
- Armenia 5
- Eritrea 5
- Turkey 5
- Ethiopia 4
- Iran 4
- Kosovo 4
- Algeria 3
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 3
- United Kingdom 3
- Colombia 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Georgia 2
- Serbia 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Ukraine 2
- United States 2
- Albania 1
- Brazil 1
- Bulgaria 1
- Cyprus 1
- Egypt 1
- Gambia 1
- Ghana 1
- Kuwait 1
- Lebanon 1
- Malawi 1
- Mali 1
- Mongolia 1
- Morocco 1
- Philippines 1
- Rwanda 1
- Senegal 1
- Tanzania 1
- Thailand 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 17
- United Kingdom 12
- France 9
- Germany 7
- Sweden 7
- Spain 5
- Finland 4
- Poland 4
- Slovenia 4
- Greece 3
- Ireland 3
- Italy 3
- Belgium 2
- Luxembourg 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Denmark 1
- Netherlands 1
- Slovakia 1