Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
10.07.2014
Facts
The applicant, Mr Tanda-Muzinga, a Congolese national, was granted refugee status by French authorities. In 2007, for the purpose of family reunion, the applicant applied for long-stay visas for his wife and three children. The applicant’s wife submitted the necessary documents, but did not receive an acknowledgment of receipt of her visa application. Having received no news on examination of his request, the applicant applied to various authorities. On 30 May 2008, the applicant lodged an appeal against the consular authorities’ implicit refusal of entry visas to France. After two months without any reply from the Appeals Board, which amounted to implicit rejection, the applicant lodged a new urgent application, which was rejected, as the birth certificates of two of the children, Michelle and Benjamin Tanda, were found to be fraudulent.
Complaint
The applicant alleged that the obstacles encountered in obtaining visas for his wife and children in the context of the family reunification procedure for refugees amounted to a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that it is not its task to take the place of the competent authorities in examining whether or not the certificates submitted in support of the request for family reunification were fraudulent. However, the Court is competent to ascertain whether the domestic courts secured the guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the Convention, taking into account the applicant’s refugee status. The Court noted that there exists a consensus at international and European level on the need for refugees to benefit from a family reunification procedure that is more favourable than that foreseen for other aliens. The Court considered that the national authorities did not give due consideration to the applicant’s specific situation, noting the numerous hurdles encountered by the applicant, and concluded that the decision-making process did not offer the guarantees required in order to secure his right to respect for family life. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.