CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 20 December 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34210/19 D.H. and Others against Sweden lodged on 19 June 2019 communicated on 1 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family reunification. The applicants are Eritrean nationals, two minor children born in 2009 and 2011 respectively, their mother and grandmother. The applicant mother was granted a refugee status in Sweden on 23 December 2015 and she currently lives there. On 15   and 26   February 2017 respectively, her two children and her elderly mother who are currently residing in Khartoum, Sudan, sought to be reunited with the applicant mother. On 4 June 2018 the Migration Agency rejected their applications. It noted that the applicant mother had refugee status under the Geneva Convention and that she had therefore the right to family reunification also under the Act on Temporary Restrictions of the Possibility of Being Granted a Residence Permit in Sweden ( Lagen om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige, Act no. 2016:752). However, the application for family reunification had been lodged more than three months after the applicant mother had been granted a residence permit in Sweden, which meant that she had to show that she could provide her family with proper accommodation and adequate livelihood, which she had not been able to do. On 1 October 2018 this decision was upheld by the Migration Court and on 19 December 2018 it became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused the applicants leave to appeal. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant the family members residence permits violates their right to respect for family life. The applicants further complain under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, that the domestic provisions on proper accommodation and adequate livelihood should have been interpreted in a less restrictive manner because the applicant mother is a person with disabilities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities engaged in a thorough balancing of the interests at stake, including taking into account the children’s best interests, and put forward relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions (see for example El Ghatet v. Switzerland , no. 56971/10, 8 November 2016; Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands , no. 60665/00, 1 December 2005; and I.A.A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25960/13, 8 March 2016)?   2.     Have the applicants been discriminated against by the domestic authorities, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8, having regard to their reasons for refusing them family reunification (see for example Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, 24 May 2016; and Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom , no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012)?