CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 16 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 32184/23 S.M.A. against the Netherlands lodged on 16 August 2023 communicated on 27 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family reunification between a mother with legal residency in the Netherlands and her son, both Surinamese citizens. The application was lodged to the competent authorities while the son (the   applicant) was still a minor, whereas he became an adult pending the domestic proceedings. The applicant’s mother moved to the Netherlands in 2017 to reunite with her Dutch husband and their child, who is a Dutch citizen. Shortly thereafter she became the victim of severe domestic violence. She and her Dutch child moved to a shelter for victims of domestic violence, and her Dutch child was placed under a childcare supervision order. The applicant’s request for family reunification was rejected because, having weighed the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of Article 8 of the Convention, the authorities had concluded that there was no reason to exempt the mother from fulfilling the income requirement. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the respondent State failed to strike a fair balance between the right to respect for his family life and the other interests at stake. Among other things he argued that the supervision order imposed on his mother’s youngest child posed an insurmountable obstacle to exercising her family life with the applicant in Suriname, and moreover that it was not in the best interests of her youngest child to move to Suriname.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the competent authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, when striking a balance between the interests involved, did those authorities and the domestic courts take sufficiently into account all relevant elements (see,   M.A. v. Denmark   [GC], no.   6697/18 , §§ 131-135, 9   July 2021; Jeunesse v.   the Netherlands   [GC], no.   12738/10 , §107-109, 3   October 2014 )?