CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } Published on 10 January 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35276/20 S.F. against Finland lodged on 5 August 2020 communicated on 16 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family reunification. The applicant is an Eritrean national, who came to Finland with her three minor children born in 2003, 2008 and 2015, respectively. The applicant and the children were granted a refugee status and permanent residence permits in Finland on 27 October 2016 and they currently live there. On 30 January 2018 the applicant’s husband and the father of her children who is currently residing in Kampala, Uganda, sought to be reunited with the applicant and the children. On 20   February 2019 the Immigration Service rejected the application. It noted that the applicant had, as a refugee, the right to a family reunification without any subsistence requirements on the condition that family reunion was sought within three months after the applicant had been granted a residence permit in Finland. As it had not, the applicant needed to show that she could provide her family with proper accommodation and adequate livelihood, which she had not been able to do. On 6 September 2019 this decision was upheld by the Administrative Court and on 26 February 2020 it became final, when the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the Finnish authorities’ refusal to grant her husband a residence permit violates her right to respect for family life.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities engaged in a thorough balancing of the interests in issue, particularly 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)?