003-7068311-9551863

WyrokETPCz2021-07-02

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy trzyletnie opóźnienie w prawie do łączenia rodzin, nałożone na skarżącego posiadającego status ochrony tymczasowej, stanowiło naruszenie jego praw wynikających z artykułów 8 (prawo do poszanowania życia prywatnego i rodzinnego) i 14 (zakaz dyskryminacji) Konwencji?
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, M.A., obywatel Syrii urodzony w 1959 roku, uciekł z Syrii w styczniu 2015 roku i uzyskał w Danii status ochrony tymczasowej. Jego wniosek o łączenie rodzin z żoną, która pozostała w Syrii, został odrzucony w 2016 roku z powodu braku trzyletniego okresu zamieszkania w Danii z zezwoleniem na pobyt. Decyzja ta została podtrzymana przez krajowe organy i sądy, w tym Sąd Najwyższy, który uznał, że ograniczenie jest uzasadnione i mieści się w marginesie oceny państwa.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 210 (2021) 02.07.2021 Announcement of a Grand Chamber case concerning family reunification The European Court of Human Rights will be adjudicating the case of M.A. v. Denmark (application no. 6697/18) at a public hearing on Friday 9 July 2021 at 10 a.m. in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg. The case concerns a delay of three years imposed in 2016 pursuant to Danish law on the applicant's right to family reunification owing to his temporary protection status. Principal facts and complaints The applicant, M.A., is a Syrian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Marstal (Denmark). The applicant fled Syria in January 2015 and requested asylum in Denmark in April of that year. His wife had remained in Syria. On 8 June 2015 the Immigration Service granted him "temporary protection status" (section 7(3) of the Aliens Act) for one year. That status was extended at yearly intervals. However, the authorities did not find that he met the requirements for being granted protection status (section 7(2) of the Aliens Act). The applicant appealed against that decision to the Refugee Appeals Board. The Board upheld the decision not to grant him protection status, stating that the applicant had not been "subjected to specific and personal persecution during his stay in Damascus". That decision was final. In the meantime, in November 2015, the applicant requested family reunification with his wife. That request was rejected in 2016 as the applicant had not had a residence permit for the previous three years. That decision was upheld by the Immigration Appeals Board. The applicant went to court, complaining that the decision was in breach of his Convention rights. He also claimed that he was being discriminated against vis-�-vis people who had been granted protection. His action was dismissed at two levels of jurisdiction and then finally by the Supreme Court. The latter court stated, in extensive reasoning and with reference to European Court of Human Rights case-law, the following: "Moreover, it appears that the number of newcomers determines whether the subsequent integration becomes successful and that it is necessary to strike the right balance to maintain a good and safe society. Against this background, the Supreme Court finds that the restriction on the eligibility for family reunification is justified by interests to be safeguarded under Article 8 of the Convention. ... the condition that [M.A.] must normally have been resident in Denmark for three years before he can be granted family reunification with his spouse falls within the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State. ... the decision made by the Immigration Appeals Board is not contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights." On 22 October 2018 the applicant reapplied for family reunification. On 29 September 2019 the applicant's wife came to Denmark having been granted a residence permit. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complains that the authorities' decision to refuse to temporarily grant him family reunification with his wife on the grounds that he did not possess a residence permit under section 7(3) of the Aliens Act for the previous three years was in breach of his rights. Procedure The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 January 2018. On 7 September 2018 the Danish Government was given notice of the application, with questions from the Court. On 19 November 2019 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. A hearing was held on 10 June 2020. Third party submissions have been received from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Governments of Norway and Switzerland, and the Danish Institute for Human Rights. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_CEDH. Press contacts [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Neil Connolly (tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 05) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel : + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel : + 33 3 90 21 55 30) Jane Swift (tel : + 33 3 88 41 29 04) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 13.07.2026. · Źródło