On 23 June 2026, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights delivered three judgments concerning the prolonged failure by the Greek authorities to decide on family reunification applications lodged by recognised refugees in Greece: T.N. v. Greece (Application no. 41855/23), Dotani v. Greece (Application no. 31077/23) and Suji v. Greece (Application no. 13250/23).
In T.N., the applicant, a Burundian refugee, sought reunification with his wife and two minor children residing in South Africa, but the Greek Asylum Service failed to issue a decision for more than five years. In Dotani, the applicant, an Afghan refugee, applied for reunification with his wife and five children in Afghanistan, yet no decision was taken for over seven years. In Suji, the applicant was a stateless Rohingya, whose reunification request with his wife and two minor children residing in Bangladesh was granted four years after it had been lodged.
The Court assessed the cases from the perspective of the respondent State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the applicant’s family members had never resided in Greece. It recalled that the assessment of family reunification requests must take into account both the (i) substantive requirements, including the existence of insurmountable or major obstacles to the family living together in the country of origin and the best interests of the children, and (ii) the procedural guarantees, requiring a decision-making process that is sufficiently flexible, prompt and effective and an individual assessment of the need to preserve family unity. The Court also emphasised that family unity constitutes an essential right of refugees and that they cannot be required to “do the impossible” in order to exercise that right.
It further stressed that, under Article 14 § 1 (b) of Presidential Decree No. 131/2006 and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC (the ‘Family Reunification Directive’), where a recognised refugee is unable to produce official documents proving family ties, the authorities must consider other evidence and may not reject the application solely because such documents are unavailable. Although neither provision expressly provides the same flexibility in relation to travel documents, the Court found no reason to exclude an analogous approach, given that the Greek case-law draws no distinction between documents establishing family relationships and travel documents. Accordingly, the authorities were required to explore alternative means of establishing the family links and facilitating reunification rather than insisting on documentary requirements.
In T.N., the Court emphasised that the applicant had fully complied with his duty to cooperate by providing available evidence and explaining why neither additional civil-status documents nor travel documents could be obtained. Nevertheless, the authorities displayed a manifest lack of flexibility by refusing to consider the evidence already submitted, failing to investigate the claimed family links through other available means and disregarding possible alternatives for the issuance of travel documents.
In Dotani, the Court likewise found that the authorities failed to carry out a proper examination of the applicant’s request despite more than seven years of administrative inaction. Although it acknowledged the practical difficulties arising from the change of regime in Afghanistan, it clarified that Greece’s policy of non-recognition of the Taliban authorities could not, in itself, prevent the competent authorities from taking account of documents or information emanating from de facto authorities where necessary to protect Convention rights, nor could it relieve them of their obligation to seek alternative solutions.
In both cases, the Court concluded that the Greek authorities had failed to carry out the individualised and balanced assessment required under Article 8 ECHR. By insisting on documentary requirements despite the applicants’ objective inability to comply and failing to consider alternative solutions, the authorities did not strike a fair balance between the applicants’ interest in family reunification and the interests of the State. Consequently, the decision-making process lacked the flexibility, promptness and effectiveness required under Article 8. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8, as no effective domestic remedy existed to challenge the prolonged failure to decide on the applications.
By contrast, in Suji v. Greece, the Court noted that although the applicant’s request for family reunification was ultimately granted, this occurred only after more than four years of administrative delay. Applying the same principles under Article 8, it held that the authorities recognised from the outset that, as a stateless Rohingya refugee, the applicant was objectively unable to obtain the required civil-status and travel documents. Instead, they failed to carry out the individualised and flexible assessment required by Article 8 by not adequately considering alternative means of proof, the applicant’s statelessness and the best interests of the children. In the absence of any convincing justification for the delay, the Court found violations of Article 8 and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the prolonged failure to decide on the application.