Published on 20 December 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 49755/18
Berhane OKUBAMICHAEL DEBRU
against Sweden
lodged on 17 October 2018
communicated on 1 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns family reunification. The applicant is an Eritrean national, born in 1954, who was granted refugee status in Sweden on 27 June 2017 and who currently lives there.
On 21 October 2017 his wife and two children, who are currently residing in Kampala, Uganda, sought to be reunited with the applicant. On 7 February 2018 the Migration Agency rejected their applications. It noted that the applicant had refugee status under the Geneva Convention and that, therefore, he had 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 reunion had been lodged more than three months after the applicant had been granted a residence permit in Sweden, which meant that he had to show that he could provide his family with proper accommodation and adequate livelihood, which he had not been able to do. On 15 March 2018 this decision was upheld by the Migration Court and, on 27 April 2018, it became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant his family members residence permits violates his right to respect for family life. The applicant further complains 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 in his case because of his high age and poor health condition.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his 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. Has the applicant 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 him 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)?