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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 20 December 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 12805/19 Ahmad MOHAMAD against Sweden lodged on 27 February 2019 communicated on 1 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family reunification. The applicant is a Syrian national, born in 1983, who was granted subsidiary protection in Sweden on 30 September 2017 and who currently lives there. On 21 October 2017 his wife, who is currently residing in Syria, sought to be reunited with the applicant. On 17 January 2018 the Migration Agency rejected her application. It noted that she was not entitled to family reunification with the applicant since he had been granted subsidiary protection in Sweden in accordance with 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) after 24 November 2015, and spouses and children of such persons were not entitled to family reunification. On 24 September 2018 this decision was upheld by the Migration Court and on 15 November 2018 it became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The applicant complains under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, that the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant his wife a residence permit is discriminatory since, for the purposes of family reunification, two groups of people in analogous situation, namely people with refugee status and people who have been granted subsidiary protection, are treated differently.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 (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), in particular in view of the provisions of 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)?