Family Reunion
We are (strategically) litigating against rejections of family reunions under the Dublin III Regulation by the German Asylum Service (BAMF). In 2018, the rejection rate of so-called take charge requests from Greece to Germany increased significantly. Many rejections are unlawful and ignore the priority of the best interest of the child and the family unity principles.
Unaccompanied minors in Greece, Article 8 Dublin III Regulation
The decisions below concern unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in Greece. Germany can be responsible for those applicants if certain requirements are fulfilled, if their parents, siblings, uncle, aunt or grandparents are legally residing in Germany (Art. 8 Dublin III Regulation).
- Article 8 para 1 Dublin III Regulation - Reunification with Parents or Siblings
-
VG Trier, Decision of 17.12.2020
VG Weimar, Decision of 24.11.2020
VG Berlin, Decision of 10.09.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 20.10.2020
VG Hannover, Decision of 24.08.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 28.05.2020
VG Trier, Decision of 20.03.2020
VG Stade, Decision of 19.11.2019
VG Ansbach, Decision of 02.10.2019
VG Stuttgart, Decision of 14.08.2019
VG Lüneburg, Decision of 08.07.2019
VG Münster, Decision of 06.05.2019
VG Arnsberg, Decision of 09.04.2019
VG Münster, Decision of 20.12.2018
VG Gelsenkirchen, Decision of 05.05.2021
- Article 8 para 2 Dublin III Regulation - Reunification with Relatives
-
VG Magdeburg, Decision of 11.05.2020
VG Bremen, Decision of 07.02.2020
VG Freiburg, Decision of 05.02.2020
Unaccompanied minors in Greece, Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation
The following cases concern unaccompanied minors to whom the binding provisions of the Regulation do not fully apply. If deadlines were missed or other criteria are not fulfilled, Germany can also be responsible under the discretionary clause of Article 17 para Dublin III Regulation.
- Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation - Family Reunion due to humanitarian reasons
-
VG Ansbach, Decison of 03.12.2020
VG Hannover, Decision of 24.08.2020
VG Gelsenkirchen, Decision of 16.07.2020
VG Lüneburg, Decision of 20.05.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 06.04.2020
VG Saarland, Decision of 09.03.2020
VG Freiburg, Decision of 05.02.2020
VG Hamburg, Decision of 06.12.2019
VG Ansbach, Decision of 26.11.2019
VG Wiesbaden, Decision of 23.09.2019
VG Hannover, Decision of 09.08.2019
VG Lüneburg, Decision of 08.07.2019
VG Hamburg, Decision of 15.01.2021
Unaccompanied minors in Germany, Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation
If the unaccompanied minor is not the applicant in Greece, but the reference person in Germany, Art. 8 Dublin III Regulation does not apply. Germany can only be responsible for the asylum procedure of family members under Art. 9 or 10 Dublin III Regulation, thus, if the minor is an applicant for or a beneficiary of international protection. Since this is often not the case for unaccompanied minors, the discretionary clause of Art. 17 (2) Dublin III Regulation and its interpretation is of high importance for this group of cases.
- Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation - Family Reunion due to humanitarian reasons
-
VG Ansbach, Decision of 30.09.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 24.09.2020
VG Lüneburg, Decision of 20.05.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 06.04.2020
Spouses as Beneficiaries of International Protection in Germany, Article 9 Dublin III Regulation
The listed decisions concern the responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany under Art. 9 Dublin III Regulation. Germany is responsible for the asylum procedure of applicants if a family member is a beneficiary of international protection in Germany and the applicants as well as the reference person gave their written consent. The following decisions address in particular problems of proof of family ties, the written consent and the three month deadline.
- Article 9 Dublin III Regulation - Recognized Spouses in Germany
-
VG Magdeburg, Decision of 27.11.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 24.08.2020
VG Ansbach Decision of 13.08.2020
VG Freiburg, Decision of 18.06.2020
VG Trier, Decision of 03.04.2020
VG Karlsruhe, Decision of 13.03.2020
VG Düsseldorf, Decision of 11.12.2019
Spouses as Asylum Seekers in Germany, Article 10 Dublin III Regulation
The following decisions deal with the "first decision regarding the substance" requirement under Art. 10 of the Dublin III Regulation. Germany is responsible for conducting an asylum procedure of an applicant if a family member is already an applicant for international protection in Germany. The requirements of Art. 10 Dublin III Regulation are fulfilled as long as the reference person doesn’t receive a first decision regarding the substance of his asylum claim. The presumption of such a decision is handled differently by the BAMF and the courts.
- Article 10 Dublin III Regulation - Spouses Seeking Asylum in Germany
-
VG Arnsberg, Decision of 17.02.2020
VG Kassel, Decision of 17.01.2020
Other Humanitarian Reasons, Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation
The listed decisions concern the applicability of the humanitarian clause, except the cases concerning unaccompanied minors, whether the minor is in Germany or another European Member state.
- Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation - Family Reunion due to humanitarian reasons
-
VG Magdeburg, Decision of 27.11.2020
VG Arnsberg, Decision of 06.05.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 28.04.2020
VG Münster,Decision of 05.06.2020
VG Trier, Decision of 03.04.2020
VG Freiburg, Decision of 01.02.2021
VG Hamburg, Decision of 05.02.2021
VG Meiningen, Decsion of 10.03.2021
Separated family unity within EU territory
The present decisions concern the constellation concerns family members who initially entered the EU together and only travelled on to another Member State after registration/asylum application. In the cases, the BAMF assumes a “voluntary family separation” and rejects to accept cases under the discretionary clause of Art. 17 (2) Dublin III Regulation. However, this blanket rejection without a case by case study does not meet the standards of the humanitarian clause, as some administrative court rulings show.
- Article 17 para 2 Dublin III Regulation - Family Reunion due to humanitarian reasons & Seperation Cases
-
VG Lüneburg, Decision of 20.05.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 06.04.2020
VG Greifswald, Decision of 11.10.2019
Unsubstantiated Rejections and Art. 22 para 7 Dublin III Regulation
The following cases concern rejections by BAMF that were purely formal and did lack any substance, which leads to an automatic responsibility of Germany under Art. 22 (7) Dublin III Regulation. This provision is regulating the situation, in which the requested member state does not answer. In the present cases this provision was applied even though Germany answered with a rejection; however the rejections were purely formal ones that were and had to be evaluated as lack of an answer to the take charge request.
- Article 27 para 7 Dublin III Regulation & Unsubstantiated Rejections
-
VG Freiburg, Decision of 18.06.2020
VG Arnsberg, Decision of 17.02.2020
Proof of family ties
The following decisions address the standard of proof in the Dublin III Regulation regarding family ties. The threshold of proof of the Dublin III Regulation is deliberately kept low and accepts the proof of the requirements through evidence and circumstantial evidence. The present decisions follow rejections, which were primarily based on the missing proof of family binding by adopting a higher threshold of proof as required by the Dublin III Regulation.
- Too high Evidence Treshold
-
VG Weimar, Decison of 24.11.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 20.10.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 24.09.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 13.08.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 28.05.2020
VG Freiburg, Decision of 18.06.2020
VG Ansbach, Decision of 06.04.2020
VG Trier, Decision of 03.04.2020
VG Trier, Decision of 20.03.2020
VG Freiburg, Decision of 05.02.2020
VG Düsseldorf, Decision of 11.12.2019
VG Ansbach,Decision of 02.10.2019
VG Stuttgart, Decision of 14.08.2019
VG Gelsenkirchen, Decision of 19.04.2021
Our modus operandi
The cases we litigate are both, our own cases from our offices in Athens and Chios but also cases our partners and other Greek lawyers refer to us for the purpose of challenging rejections in family reunion procedures in German courts. We also work with cooperation lawyers. Our litigation referral form can be found here.