CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34685/23 X and Others against Sweden lodged on 16 September 2023 communicated on 27 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family reunification. The applicants are all Eritrean nationals. The first applicant was granted refugee status and a permanent residence permit in Sweden in 2015 and currently lives there. The second and third applicants are his wife and their minor child, who are currently residing in Kenya. In April 2016 the second and third applicant applied for residence permits in Sweden for the purposes of family reunification which was refused on the grounds that they had not proven their identities, mainly because they did not have Eritrean passports. This decision became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal in March 2018. Meanwhile, legislation had entered into force which introduced a maintenance requirement for family reunification, unless an application had been lodged within three months after the sponsor in Sweden had been granted asylum. In April 2018 the second and third applicant, who had by then acquired passports, once more applied for family reunification. Their applications were rejected on the ground that the first applicant did not fulfil the maintenance requirement. This decision became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal in October 2019. In November 2019 the second and third applicant once more applied for family reunification. In June 2022 the Migration Agency rejected their applications on the grounds that the first applicant did not fulfil the maintenance requirement, that it was not disproportionate or contrary to Article 8 of the Convention to uphold the maintenance requirement in the applicants’ case, and that there were therefore no exceptional reasons to grant an exemption from the maintenance requirement. This decision was upheld by the Migration Court and on 17 May 2023 it became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the Swedish authorities’ continued refusal to grant the second and third applicants residence permits for the purpose of family reunification violates their right to respect for family life. They submit, in particular, that the strict application of the maintenance requirement in their case has led to them being denied family reunification for an excessive period of time and could be liable to enforce the family’s separation for a long time to come. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities struck a fair balance, subject to their margin of appreciation, between the competing interests involved (see, for example, B.F. and Others v.   Switzerland , nos. 13258/18 and 3 others, 4 July 2023; Dabo v.   Sweden , no.   12510/18, 18 January 2024; and Okubamichael Debru v.   Sweden , no.   49755/18, 25 July 2024)?