CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }   Communicated on 7 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6697/18 M.A. against Denmark lodged on 30 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Syrian national, who entered Denmark in January   2015 and requested asylum. On 8 June 2015, he was granted temporary protection status for one year, under section 7, subsection 3, of the Aliens Act, concerning “individuals who face capital punishment, torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment due to severe instability and indiscriminate violence against civilians in their home country.”   His residence permit was subsequently prolonged for one year at a time. The authorities did not find that the applicant fulfilled the requirements for being granted protection under section 7, subsection 1 of the Act (individuals falling under the protection of the UN Refugee Convention) or under subsection 2 (individuals, who do not qualify as refugees, but who are facing capital punishment, torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, if returned to their home country). Residence permits under subsection 1 and 2 are normally granted for five years. On 4 November 2015, the applicant requested family reunion with his wife, whom he married in 1990. His request was refused by a final decision of 16 September 2016 by the Immigration Appeals Board ( Udlændingenævnet ) because the applicant had not possessed a residence permit under section 7, subsection 3, for the last three years (section   9, subsection 1, 1 (d) of the Act) and because there were no special reasons, including concern for the unity of the family, to justify family reunion under section 9, subsection 1, 1 (c) of the Act. The applicant instituted proceedings before the courts complaining that the refusal to grant him family reunion with his wife was in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, and of Article 8 taken alone. He submitted that he had been discriminated against compared to persons granted protection under section 7, subsections 1 and 2, of the Aliens Act, because the Danish Parliament, b y Act 102 of 3   February 2016, had amended section 9, subsection 1, 1 (d) of the Aliens Act, so that the right to family reunification for a person granted temporary protection status under section 7, subsection 3, in principle, was postponed from one to three years (unless special reasons existed). The High Court of Eastern Denmark ( Østre Landsret ) found against him in a judgment of 19 May 2017, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court ( Højesteret ) on 6 November 2017. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the decision of 16 September 2016 by the Immigration Appeals Board to refuse to grant the applicant’s wife a residence permit in Denmark based on family reunion in breach of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention, or under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article   8?