Down to the Minimum: An analysis of the family reunification rights under the Temporary Law
(2019) JURM02 20192Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In July 2016, the Law on temporary limitations to the possibility of being granted residence permit in Sweden (the Temporary Law) came into force. The Temporary Law implied a sharp turn in Swedish asylum legislation. The right to family reunification, which previously had been granted subsidiary protection beneficiaries and refugees on a similar basis, was suddenly heavily restricted for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The government claimed that the changes corresponded to the minimum requirements of EU-law and international law. The Temporary Law did however become an object of major criticism, and the critique primarily concerned the restrictions’ potential conflict with rights under the European Convention for the Protection of... (More)
- In July 2016, the Law on temporary limitations to the possibility of being granted residence permit in Sweden (the Temporary Law) came into force. The Temporary Law implied a sharp turn in Swedish asylum legislation. The right to family reunification, which previously had been granted subsidiary protection beneficiaries and refugees on a similar basis, was suddenly heavily restricted for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The government claimed that the changes corresponded to the minimum requirements of EU-law and international law. The Temporary Law did however become an object of major criticism, and the critique primarily concerned the restrictions’ potential conflict with rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR).
This thesis examines if the Temporary Law restrictions on the right to family reunification for subsidiary protection beneficiaries were in compliance with the requirements under Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The restrictions are hereby examined in relation to the right to respect for family life and the prohibition of discrimination. The analysis identifies a number of issues regarding the compatibility with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The particular vulnerability of subsidiary protection beneficiaries, which is linked to a presumed right to family reunification under Article 8 ECHR, was not recognised by the Temporary Law. Furthermore, the procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR were arguably not fulfilled by the Temporary Law. The examination additionally concludes that the Temporary Law restrictions violated the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Considering that subsidiary protection beneficiaries and refugees are in a relevantly similar situation for the purpose of family reunification, the government failed to provide a reasonable and objective justification for the Temporary Law's differential treatment.
In sum, this thesis suggests that the Temporary Law restrictions failed to meet the minimum level of protection under the ECHR. Accordingly, the Temporary Law not merely adjusted the right to family reunification down to the minimum of EU-law and international law, the Temporary Law fell below the minimum and hereby failed to comply with the obligations under Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The failure to meet the minimum standards of the ECHR could be explained by the influential role of the immigration control prerogative in the context of human rights protection of immigrants. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I juli 2016 introducerades lagen om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (den tillfälliga lagen). Ikraftträdandet av den tillfälliga lagen innebar att rätten till familjeåterförening för alternativt skyddsbehövande begränsades avsevärt. Enligt 7§ den tillfälliga lagen exkluderades alternativt skyddsbehövande från rätten att återförenas med sin familj under de tre år den tillfälliga lagen skulle gälla. Flyktingar behöll dock en rätt till familjeåterförening. Den tillfälliga lagen innehöll en säkerhetsventil i 13§ för att undvika att begränsningarna skulle hamna i strid med det internationella konventionsskyddet av mänskliga rättigheter. Den begränsade rätten till familjeåterförening väckte skarp... (More)
- I juli 2016 introducerades lagen om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (den tillfälliga lagen). Ikraftträdandet av den tillfälliga lagen innebar att rätten till familjeåterförening för alternativt skyddsbehövande begränsades avsevärt. Enligt 7§ den tillfälliga lagen exkluderades alternativt skyddsbehövande från rätten att återförenas med sin familj under de tre år den tillfälliga lagen skulle gälla. Flyktingar behöll dock en rätt till familjeåterförening. Den tillfälliga lagen innehöll en säkerhetsventil i 13§ för att undvika att begränsningarna skulle hamna i strid med det internationella konventionsskyddet av mänskliga rättigheter. Den begränsade rätten till familjeåterförening väckte skarp kritik. Kritiken gällde primärt begränsningarnas potentiella konflikt med rättigheter enligt Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (EKMR).
Följande arbete undersöker om begränsningarna enligt den tillfälliga lagen gällande rätten till familjeåterförening för alternativt skyddsbehövande uppfyllde kraven enligt artikel 8 och artikel 14 EKMR. Uppsatsen undersöker alltså den tillfälliga lagen i relation till rätten till respekt för familjeliv och förbudet mot diskriminering. Analysen uppmärksammar att de tillfälliga begränsningarna var problematiska i relation till de positiva skyldigheter som följer av artikel 8 EKMR. Den tillfälliga lagen saknade hänsyn till den särskilda sårbarhet som alternativt skyddsbehövande har. Denna särskilda sårbarhet, vilken också innehas av flyktingar, kommer till uttryck i den ofrivilliga familjeseparationen samt avsaknaden av möjligheten att återförenas i ursprungslandet. Den tillfälliga lagen innebar även potentiella problem gällande de processuella skyldigheterna som innefattas i artikel 8 EKMR.
Analysen av artikel 14 tillsammans med artikel 8 EKMR ger stöd åt slutsatsen att den tillfälliga lagen innebar otillåten diskriminering. De båda skyddsgrupperna, alltså alternativt skyddsbehövande och flyktingar, har likartade skyddsbehov och därav även ett likartat behov att återförenas med sin familj. Alternativt skyddsbehövande och flyktingar kan därav betraktas som jämförbara fall avseende rätten till familjeåterförening. Regeringen ansåg att särbehandlingen var berättigad. De argument som framfördes kan emellertid inte anses uppfylla kravet att vara objektivt godtagbara. Begränsningen av rätten till familjeåterförening för alternativt skyddsbehövande innebar alltså otillåten diskriminering enligt artikel 14 EKMR.
Uppsatsen leder sammanfattningsvis fram till slutsatsen att den tillfälliga lagen sänkte skyddsnivån under EKMR:s minimumnivå. Analysen uppmärksammar den negativa särbehandling som påverkar immigranters tillgång till mänskliga rättigheter. Principen om statens suveräna rätt att reglera invandringen förklarar varför immigranter har ett svagare skydd under internationella mänskliga rättigheter. Denna princip, vilken oundvikligen förhindrar ett jämlikt skydd av mänskliga rättigheter, upprätthålls av Europeiska domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheterna. Det är därav en fortsatt utmaning att säkerställa ett effektivt skydd av mänskliga rättigheter för immigranter. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9000338
- author
- Nilsson, Matilda LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20192
- year
- 2019
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- public international law, administrative law, family reunification, Temporary Law, article 8 ECHR, article 14 ECHR, discrimination, right to respect for family life
- language
- English
- id
- 9000338
- date added to LUP
- 2020-02-01 13:43:09
- date last changed
- 2020-02-01 13:43:09
@misc{9000338,
abstract = {{In July 2016, the Law on temporary limitations to the possibility of being granted residence permit in Sweden (the Temporary Law) came into force. The Temporary Law implied a sharp turn in Swedish asylum legislation. The right to family reunification, which previously had been granted subsidiary protection beneficiaries and refugees on a similar basis, was suddenly heavily restricted for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The government claimed that the changes corresponded to the minimum requirements of EU-law and international law. The Temporary Law did however become an object of major criticism, and the critique primarily concerned the restrictions’ potential conflict with rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR).
This thesis examines if the Temporary Law restrictions on the right to family reunification for subsidiary protection beneficiaries were in compliance with the requirements under Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The restrictions are hereby examined in relation to the right to respect for family life and the prohibition of discrimination. The analysis identifies a number of issues regarding the compatibility with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The particular vulnerability of subsidiary protection beneficiaries, which is linked to a presumed right to family reunification under Article 8 ECHR, was not recognised by the Temporary Law. Furthermore, the procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR were arguably not fulfilled by the Temporary Law. The examination additionally concludes that the Temporary Law restrictions violated the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Considering that subsidiary protection beneficiaries and refugees are in a relevantly similar situation for the purpose of family reunification, the government failed to provide a reasonable and objective justification for the Temporary Law's differential treatment.
In sum, this thesis suggests that the Temporary Law restrictions failed to meet the minimum level of protection under the ECHR. Accordingly, the Temporary Law not merely adjusted the right to family reunification down to the minimum of EU-law and international law, the Temporary Law fell below the minimum and hereby failed to comply with the obligations under Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The failure to meet the minimum standards of the ECHR could be explained by the influential role of the immigration control prerogative in the context of human rights protection of immigrants.}},
author = {{Nilsson, Matilda}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Down to the Minimum: An analysis of the family reunification rights under the Temporary Law}},
year = {{2019}},
}