The EU holds a significant part in the combat against terrorism.
In this particular scenario, the conflict stemmed from a Syrian mom living in Cologne and her two minor children. The dad and father of these kids, also a Syrian man, fled his home country in 2013. He went through Turkey and reached Bulgaria, which recognized him as a refugee based on the Geneva Refugee Convention.
From Bulgaria, he journeyed to Germany and lodged another asylum request, which was denied by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf). He was supposed to be sent back to Bulgaria, but this didn't materialize.
The Administrative Court of Cologne prompted Bamf to impose a deportation ban for Bulgaria due to potential human rights infringements. Bamf eventually acknowledged his status for subsidiary protection but continued to deny refugee status. He was issued a temporary residence permit.
The mom and older daughter departed from Syria in 2015 and, as per the court, traversed Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, and Italy before reaching Germany. They submitted an asylum application. Their son was born in Cologne in 2017. Bamf only approved subsidiary protection for the applicants. However, the Administrative Court of Cologne ruled that Bamf must recognize the applicants' refugee status due to their husband or father's Bulgarian refugee recognition.
The Higher Administrative Court has now reversed this decision and dismissed the appeal. It mentioned that the applicants didn't face personal persecution in Syria and thus couldn't claim refugee status based on their husband or father's status. According to the Asylum Act, only close relatives of a foreigner can secure refugee protection in Germany if that person is granted refugee status in Germany itself.
Generally, refugees who secure refugee status in another country should return to that nation, as the court further explained. That nation is also responsible for family reunification.
However, if the responsibility for the refugee is unusually handed over to Germany, such as in this situation, family reunification is governed by the Residence Act. It doesn't necessitate family refugee protection under the Asylum Act for the family members. The Senate granted leave to appeal to the Federal Administrative Court due to the fundamental relevance of the case.
The Commission has reviewed the Higher Administrative Court's decision to dismiss the appeal, considering its significant implications. The Commission has expressed concerns about the potential human rights implications for the family in this case.
