On 25 July 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered two separate judgments in relation to similar complaints on the refusal to grant family reunification, due to failure of the maintenance requirement. The applicants in the two cases relied on Article 8 and Article 14 of the Convention. In both its judgments the ECtHR unanimously held there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
In Okubamichael Debru v. Sweden the applicant, a recognised refugee, complained about the refusal to grant him family reunification with his wife and two children. He first arrived in Sweden in September 2017 and was not reunited with his family until September 2022. He claimed that the Swedish authorities’ first refusal to grant his wife and two children residence permits, finalised on 27 April 2018, violated his right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court recognised admissibility in the Article 8 claim, but did not in regards to Article 14. It stressed the core question of this case was whether the Swedish Authorities struck a fair balance between, on the one hand the interests of the applicant being reunited with his family members, and on the other those of the State in controlling immigration.
The applicant argued Swedish authorities failed to consider the fact the family had been separated for a long time, and his age and health made it impossible to fulfil the maintenance requirement. He also claimed he had not been provided with a personal identity number, in the first month of his stay, and had no knowledge of Swedish legislation at the time. He argued these were objectively excusable reasons for not having submitted the application for reunification in the first three months. The Court unanimously held there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Noting the absence of a personal identity number did not constitute an obstacle, or have an impact in his application for reunification. The Court also stressed that the applicant had been referred to legal assistance by the Swedish Migration Agency.
Similarly, in D.H. and Others v Sweden the applicant argued that refusal to grant family reunification with her two children and mother, finalised on 19 December 2019, violated her right to respect for family guaranteed by Article 8. Stating Swedish authorities had failed to engage in thorough balancing test to weigh up interests at stake. In particular those of the children, the length of the family’s separation and the first applicants disability. The ECtHR again held there had been no violation of Article 8, and found the domestic authorities had struck a fair balance between competing interests. Firstly noting that the applicants could have applied for family reunification between 23 December 2015 and 20 July 2016, during which reunification would not have been subject to the maintenance requirement. The Court also stressed that on 18 January 2016, in meeting with the Migration Agency the first applicant had been informed on procedure for applying for family reunification. Again the Court concluded that there existed no objectively excusable reasons for failing to submit the application within the first three months. As for Article 14 the ECtHR held the claim to be inadmissible. Lastly the Court expressed that it was not convinced the applicants had demonstrated a failure on behalf of the Swedish Government to treat the first applicant differently because of her reduced mobility or her incapacity to perform various types of jobs.