86 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE

86 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6lies—a category which is broadly defined (see below)—to enter and remainin the destination country, irrespective of refugee or other status.The circumstances in which this will be the case have been consideredmost comprehensively 187 by the European Court of Human Rights, applyingthe right to respect for private and family life under Article 8ECHR. 188 The obligation arises only in limited circumstances, in light ofthe principle of State control of entry to its territory, and the Court hasemphasised that Article 8 does not require States to respect choice ofmatrimonial residence or authorise family reunion in their territory. 189Under Article 8 there will however be a positive obligation on the Stateof destination to facilitate family reunification on its territory wherethere is an insurmountable objective obstacle preventing the migrantalready with its jurisdiction from realising his or her family liferights in any other place. 190The Court will take into consideration the reasons why one family memberleft his or her State of origin or residence without other membersof the family. Fleeing war and/or seeking asylum might be strong argumentsthat hinder the development of family life outside of the countryof destination. 191 As between two adults, it will be difficult to plead theexistence of an insurmountable obstacle against living together in the187 Gül v. Switzerland, ECtHR, Case No. 53/1995/559/645, Judgment of 19 February 1996,para. 38. See also, Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, ApplicationNo. 60665/00, Judgment of 1 December 2005, para. 42; Sen v. the Netherlands, ECtHR,Application No. 31465/96, Judgment of 21 December 2001, para. 31; Abdulaziz, Cabalesand Balkandali v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 43; Ahmut v. the Netherlands, ECtHR,Case No. 73/1995/579/665, Judgment of 26 October 1996, para. 64; Hode and Abdi v.the United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 59; Osman v. Denmark, ECtHR, Application No.38058/09, Judgment of 14 June 2011; Haydarie and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR,Application No. 8876/04, Admissibility Decision, 25 October 2005, The Law; Benamar v. theNetherlands, ECtHR, Application No. 43786/04, Admissibility Decision, 5 April 2005, TheLaw; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, Application No. 53102/99, AdmissibilityDecision, 13 May 2003, The Law.188 Although it has not decided on this situation, the Human Rights Committee has found thatthe right of family reunification was protected under Article 23 ICCPR in Ngambi and Nébol v.France, CCPR, Communication No. 1179/2003, Views of 16 July 2004, para. 6.4. Concernsabout family reunification have been also raised by the Concluding Observations on Denmark,CESCR, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.102, 14 December 2004, paras. 16 and 24; ConcludingObservations on Hungary, CESCR, UN Doc. E/C.12/HUN/CO/3, 16 January 2008, paras. 21and 44; Concluding Observations on Austria, CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/AUT/CO/4, 30 October2007, para. 19; Concluding Observations on France, CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4,31 July 2008, para. 21.189 Gül v. Switzerland, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, para. 38. See also, Tuquabo-Tekle and Othersv. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, para. 43; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v.United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 43, para. 68; Haydarie and Others v. the Netherlands,ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, The Law; Benamar and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit.,fn. 187, The Law; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187.190 See, Benamar and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, The Law. See also,Gül v. Switzerland, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, paras. 38–42; Sen v. the Netherlands, ECtHR,op. cit., fn. 187, para. 31.191 See, Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, para. 47.

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 87country of origin, unless the person in the country of destination isthere as a refugee or beneficiary of international protection. 192Obstacles to or conditions for family reunification will violate the rightto respect for family life where they can be shown to be unreasonable.The Court did not consider unreasonable a requirement of demonstratingsufficient independent and lasting income, not being welfare benefits,to provide for the basic costs of subsistence of the family memberswith whom reunion is sought. 193Finally, a rule that discriminates as to family reunification (whether detrimentallyor preferentially) based on the gender of the person settledin the country of destination, whether a marriage between a refugeeand his or her spouse took place before or after fleeing the country oforigin, or presumably other prohibited grounds, would breach the prohibitionof discrimination in connection with the right to family life. 194i) What is a family?For the purposes of the right to respect for family life and in cases wherefamily reunification is sought, how is “family” defined? The EuropeanCourt’s definition is a broad one, which has developed over time in accordancewith changing ideas of family, and is likely to continue to doso in light of evolving social attitudes. 195 The Court has addressed twobroad categories of relationships: relationships between children andtheir parents; and partnerships between adults. 196In the context of relationships between minor children and their parents,family life will always be considered to exist between a child and192 See, on the negative outcome, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, ECtHR,op. cit., fn. 43, paras. 66–69.193 Haydarie and Others v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 187, The Law. Also previouslyheld by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Resolution (78) 33, CMCE,op. cit., fn. 179, Article B.1(b)(iii). See, Concluding Observations on Switzerland, CCPR,Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, 52 nd Session, Vol. I,UN Doc. A/52/40 (1997), paras. 103 and 114: the Human Rights Committee found that arule prohibiting family reunification for foreign workers until 18 months after the obtainingof a temporary residence permit was not in compliance with Article 23 ICCPR (children’srights), as the possibility of reunification should be given “shortly after” obtaining thepermit. The Committee of Ministers in 1978 stressed that the waiting period should bereduced to a minimum and not exceed twelve months: Resolution (78) 33, CMCE, op. cit.,fn. 179, Article B.1(b)(i).194 See, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 43,paras. 74–83. See also, Mauritian Women Case, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 55. On the question oftime of marriage in relation to family reunifaction as a prohibited ground of discrimination,see, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 59, paras. 42–56.195 Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, ECtHR, Application No. 30141/04, Judgment of 24 June 2010,paras. 93–95.196 See restatement of the Court’s jurisprudence in Onur v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, ApplicationNo. 27319/07, Judgment of 27 February 2009, paras. 43–45. See also, Konstatinov v. theNetherlands, ECtHR, Application No. 16351/03, Judgment of 26 April 2007, para. 52.