Biao v. Denmark - 38590/10 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 380 (25 March 2014)

Biao v. Denmark - 38590/10 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 380 (25 March 2014)

The Court found that the refusal to grant family reunion did not violate Article 8, as the authorities acted within their margin of appreciation and the applicants could exercise family life elsewhere. The difference in treatment under the 28-year rule was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and thus...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 380
Parties
Applicant: Biao; Respondent: Denmark
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
25 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
no violation of Article 8; no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8
Legal Topics
Family Reunion, Discrimination, Right to Respect for Family Life
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Family Reunion Discrimination Right to Respect for Family Life

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biao

Applicant

Denmark

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant family reunion in Denmark violated Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the 28-year rule under the Danish Aliens Act constituted discrimination in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the refusal to grant family reunion did not violate Article 8, as the authorities acted within their margin of appreciation and the applicants could exercise family life elsewhere. The difference in treatment under the 28-year rule was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and thus there was no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

Court Disposition

no violation of Article 8; no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8