Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
United Nations
Country of Decision : United Nations
Court Name : UN: Human Rights Committee [CCPR]
Date of decision : 25/07/2019
Type :
ECLI :
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : CCPR/C/126/D/2531/2015

Nimo Mohamed Aden and Liban Muhammed Hassan vs Denmark

The authors claim that the rejection of their application for family reunification constitutes an unlawful interference by the State party in their right to family life, as protected by articles 17 and 23 of the International convenant. 

In this connection, for the purpose of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee recalled that domestic remedies must not only be available, but also effective, which also depends on the nature of the alleged violation.

With regard to the metits, the Committee considered that the immigration authorities, in the assessment of the marital relationship of the authors, failed to adequately take into consideration the authors’ marital relationship in the context of their personal situation and the cultural context in their country of origin.

With regard to the authors’ claims under articles 17 and 23, the Committee observed that the State party’s action amounted to a barrier to the family being reunited in Denmark. The Committee took the view that the common residence of husband, wife and child has to be considered as the normal situation of a family.Hence, the rejection of the visa of a spouse to a country where another spouse and their child live could amount to an interference within the meaning of article 17. The Committee thus considered that the State party failed to discharge its obligation under articles 17 and 23 to respect the family unit.

Credibility; Family Reunification;

National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR);

EASO IDS

United Nations,UN: Human Rights Committee [CCPR], Nimo Mohamed Aden and Liban Muhammed Hassan vs Denmark, 25/07/2019
UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) views on family reunification

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=894