Third party intervention European Court of Human Rights case M.T. and others v Sweden (Appl no 22105/18)

This case concerns a Syrian minor boy, whose request for family reunification with his mother and brother was refused. The reason was a temporary law adopted in Sweden which provided that persons in need of subsidiary protection do not have the right to family reunification (while refugees do have that right). The boy and his family members complain that their right to family life in conjunction with the right to non-discrimination has been violated.

The ECtHR has communicated the case to the Swedish Government on 20 December 2018 and asked it the following questions:

1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities engaged in a thorough balancing of the interests in issue, particularly taking into account the children’s best interests, and put forward relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions (see, for example, El Ghatet v. Switzerland, no.56971/10, 8 November 2016; Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, 1 December 2005; and I.A.A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25960/13, 8 March 2016)?

2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 (see, for example, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, 24 May 2016; and Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012)?

In its third party intervention the Migration Law Clinic addresses the second question. The third party intervention was submitted in July 2019 (see below for the text of the third party intervention). 

In a judgment of 22 October 2022, the ECtHR ruled that there was no violation of Article 8 ECHR and no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.