ECHR: The state cannot block refugee family reunification due to documents that are objectively impossible to obtain
The European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling in the case of Suji v. Greece (application No. 13250/23) dated June 23, 2026, which examined the compliance with the right to respect for family life during the refugee stateless person's family reunification procedure. The Court also assessed whether the individual had an effective legal remedy against prolonged inactivity of state authorities.
The issues addressed in this decision are of significant importance for human rights protection practice, as they concern guarantees for the realization of the right to family life for persons granted international protection but who, due to objective circumstances, cannot meet the formal requirements of national legislation regarding document submission.
Case circumstances
The applicant is a stateless person, a representative of the Rohingya ethnic group from Myanmar. In 2019, Greece granted him refugee status. After that, he applied for reunification with his wife and two minor children who were in Bangladesh.
During the application review, the Greek Asylum Service required travel documents of family members and official documents confirming family ties.
The applicant explained that his family, as stateless persons, could not obtain such documents. Instead, he submitted documents from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) containing information about the family members and confirming their status.
The applicant's representative repeatedly contacted authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consular offices, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Greek Ombudsman requesting to find an alternative way to confirm identity and family ties. Possible solutions proposed included DNA testing and the use of special travel documents, but for a long time no decision was made in the case.
Only in November 2023, more than four years after the application was submitted, did the Asylum Service grant the family reunification request. The authority recognized that obtaining official documents for the Rohingya was objectively impossible and that family ties could be confirmed by other evidence. In November 2024, the applicant's wife and children arrived in Greece.
ECHR position
The ECHR noted that Article 8 of the Convention imposes positive obligations on states to ensure effective respect for family life. In family reunification cases, competent authorities must ensure a fair balance between the state's interests in migration control and the individual's right to family life.
The Court emphasized that the special status of refugees requires consideration of practical difficulties they face when obtaining documents.
The ECHR stated that when submitting official documents is objectively impossible, authorities must assess other evidence confirming family ties, rather than strictly applying legislative requirements.
The Court stressed that the decision-making process must meet the requirements of flexibility, promptness, and effectiveness, especially concerning refugees and their children.
The ECHR also noted that Greek legislation itself allowed competent authorities to consider other evidence of family ties if the refugee could not submit official documents and explicitly prohibited refusal of family reunification solely due to their absence.
Nevertheless, national authorities failed to properly consider alternative ways to confirm family ties, although the applicant repeatedly drew their attention to the objective impossibility of obtaining official documents and proposed other solutions.
According to the Court, the prolonged inactivity of administrative bodies led to an unjustified multi-year separation of the applicant from his family and did not comply with the state's positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention.
Convention violations
The ECHR examined the state's actions for compliance with Articles 8, 13, and 14 of the Convention.
Regarding Article 8, the Court found a violation. It concluded that authorities did not ensure a fair balance between the state's interests and the applicant's right to respect for family life. The procedure for reviewing his application did not meet the requirements of flexibility, promptness, and effectiveness, and the prolonged failure to make a decision was incompatible with the state's positive obligations.
Regarding Article 13, the Court also found a violation. The ECHR noted that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy to challenge the prolonged inactivity of administrative bodies and achieve timely resolution of the family reunification issue.
The complaint under Article 14 was not separately examined, as the violations of Articles 8 and 13 were sufficient to resolve the case.
Thus, the ECHR confirmed that when a refugee or stateless person cannot provide official documents for objective reasons, state authorities must conduct an individual assessment of the case circumstances, consider alternative evidence of family ties, and ensure prompt and effective consideration of the family reunification application.
Additionally, read another ECHR position, where the Court recognized the legality of forcibly hospitalizing a pregnant woman under escort despite her wish to give birth at home.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
