CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 2 December 2020 Published on 21 December 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 64534/19 Abdi Ali MAHAMUD against the Netherlands lodged on 10 December 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a request for family reunion. In 2016 the applicant, who was born in Somalia in 1975 and has been living in the Netherlands since 2008, applied for a provisional residence visa on behalf of his brother, a Somali national born in 1992. According to the applicant, “more than the normal emotional ties” existed between them. He submitted that his brother and their mother had been living with him and his children since 1992. His requests for provisional residence visa for his nine children and a foster child had been granted and, after his mother had died in December 2009, his brother had been the only person left behind. Due to their age difference and other circumstances, the applicant and his brother had always considered each other like father and son. His brother suffered from a range of medical problems (among which depression and post ‑ traumatic stress disorder) which made him unable to go to school or work. The applicant was in daily contact with him, supported him financially and emotionally and arranged everything for him. The applicant provided statements from medical experts attesting to his brother’s psychological problems and inability to function independently, which in the experts’ opinion were partly due to loneliness and the separation from the applicant. The authorities did not allow reunion because they found that “more than the normal emotional ties” were not established. They did not dispute the facts as stated by the applicant but found that there were no indications that his brother was “exclusively dependent” on him. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the denial of family reunion violates his right to respect for his family life.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is there, given the specific circumstances of the case, “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention between the applicant and his brother? In particular, has the applicant demonstrated that there are “additional elements of dependence” (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no.   48321/99, § 97, ECHR 2003 ‑ X, and A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom , no.   6222/10, § 32, 20 December 2011) between him and his brother?   2.     If so, did the refusal of the applicant’s request for family reunion comply with the Netherlands authorities’ positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention?