Last Updated on May 2, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 20 December 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 22105/18
M.T. and Others
against Sweden
lodged on 9 May 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants, a mother and two children, are Syrian nationals. One of the children applied for asylum in March 2016 and was granted subsidiary protection status in Sweden in November 2016 pursuant to Chapter 4, section 2, subsection 1(1) of the Aliens Act (Utlänningslag, 2005:71). He was given a temporary residence permit under Section 5 of the Act on Temporary Restrictions of the Possibility of Being Granted a Residence Permit in Sweden (Lag om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige, 2016:752); it has subsequently been prolonged.
The applications for residence permits of the other two applicants based on family ties were rejected on the grounds that recipients of subsidiary protection who had requested asylum after 24 November 2015 and had been granted temporary residence permits under Section 5 of the 2016 Act were not entitled to family reunification and that it would not contravene Swedish commitments under any convention to reject the applications.
The applicants complain that the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant the first and third applicants residence permits violates the applicants’ rights to family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants further complain that the difference in treatment, in regard to family reunification, of persons granted refugee status and persons granted subsidiary protection status, constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. 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 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)?
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 (see, for example, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, 24 May 2016; and Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012)?
Leave a Reply