EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-355/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 July 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v BL, BC

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0355

62020CN0355

July 30, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/6

(Case C-355/20)

(2020/C 348/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendants: BL, BC

Joined party: Stadt Chemnitz

Questions referred

1

1(a) In the case of subsequent immigration in order to join an unaccompanied minor refugee in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) and Article 2(f) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003, can the continued existence of the refugee’s minority be a ‘condition’ within the meaning of Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2003/86/EC? Is legislation of a Member State under which parents who immigrated subsequently to join an unaccompanied minor refugee for the purposes of Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86/EC are granted a (derived) right of residence in the Member State only for as long as the refugee is actually still a minor compatible with the aforesaid provisions?

2(b) If the questions in 1(a) are answered in the affirmative: Is Article 16(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) and Article 2(f), of Directive 2003/86/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State under whose legislation the parents’ (derived) right of residence is limited to the period up until when the child comes of age is allowed to reject an application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification submitted by parents still resident in a third country if the refugee has come of age before the adoption of a final decision, in administrative or court proceedings, on an application lodged within three months of recognition of the child’s refugee status?

(a)Does a first-degree relationship in the direct ascending line suffice (Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86/EC) or is a real family life also necessary?

(b)If a real family life is also necessary: How close must it be? For example, do occasional or regular visits suffice, must the family cohabit in a single household or must they also be part of a support unit whose members are reliant upon one another?

(c)For the subsequent immigration of parents who are still in a third country and who have submitted an application for family reunification to join a child with recognised refugee status who has since come of age, must there be the expectation that, following their entry, family life will be (re-)established in the Member State in the manner required in Question 2(b)?

(1) Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia