| Applicant name | D.H. AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 3 |
| Country | Sweden |
| Application no. | 34210/19 |
| Date | 25/07/2024 |
| Judges | Ivana Jelić, President, Alena Poláčková, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Lətif Hüseynov, Gilberto Felici, Erik Wennerström, Raffaele Sabato |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | careful balance |
| Type of privacy | relational privacy |
| Keywords | family reunion |
| Facts of the case | he first applicant, who was granted asylum in Sweden, complains about the refusal to grant her family reunification with her two children and her mother, on the ground that she, at the relevant time, failed to fulfil the maintenance requirement. The applicant relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | e Court concludes that in the circumstances of the present case the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the interests of the applicants and those of the State in controlling immigration, and that they did not overstep the margin of appreciation afforded to them when refusing the request for family reunification. As to Article 8+14 ECHR, the Court observes on the one hand that it is undisputed that the first applicant’s mobility was reduced to some extent, that she was unable to perform some kinds of work, including hard physical labour, and that she did not succeed in finding employment in the period from 23 December 2015, when she was granted a residence (and work) permit, until 19 December 2018, when the decision to refuse family reunification became final. On the other hand, the applicants have not submitted any substantiation of their claim that the first applicant was disabled to such an extent that she was unable to work, or that she had applied for work in vain. Moreover, although the Swedish authorities did not immediately exempt the first applicant from complying with the maintenance requirement due to her reduced mobility, it can hardly be said that they failed to support the first applicant in qualifying for and obtaining employment within a field suitable to her, which could allow her in the future to comply with the maintenance requirement. Thus, the first applicant was offered Swedish language courses. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |