Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:853
Date: 2025-10-30
Language of the case: German

Anonymised version 
Translation C-571/24 – 1 
Case C-571/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
27 August 2024 
Referring court: 
Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 May 2024 
Applicants and appellants: 
YO 
CT 
Defendant and respondent: 
Federal Republic of Germany 
  
OBERVERWALTUNGSGERICHT 
BERLIN-BRANDENBURG 
(HIGHER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, BERLIN-BRANDENBURG) 
ORDER 
[…] 
In the administrative-law dispute of 
1. YO […], 
2. CT, […] Merkez/Siirt, Türkiye, 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-571/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
applicants and appellants, 
[…] 
v 
Federal Republic of Germany, 
[…] Berlin, 
defendant and respondent, 
other party summoned to the proceedings: 
Kreis Bergstraße – Der Landrat, Ausländer- und Migrationsamt – 
(District of Bergstraße – Chief Administrative Officer, Office for Foreign 
Nationals and Migration), 
[…] Heppenheim, 
the 3rd Senate […], further to the hearing of 14 May 2024, has made the 
following order: 
The proceedings are stayed. 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling under the first paragraph of Article 267 
TFEU: 
1. Does the time limit of three months from the grant of refugee status, to 
which, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of 
Justice of 12 April 2018 (C-550/16, paragraph 61), an application for 
family reunification made on the basis of Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 
2003/86/EC must be subject in the case where the sponsor was under 
18 years of age at the time when he or she entered the territory of a 
Member State and applied for asylum in that State but reaches the age 
of majority during the asylum procedure, apply unchanged even if that 
time limit had already expired at the time of the judgment of 12 April 
2018 but the then practice of the administrative authorities and the 
case-law of the supreme court in such matters in that Member State 
offered no realistic prospect for a refugee having already reached the 
age of majority to be able to make a successful application for family 
reunification? 
KREIS BERGSTRAßE 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does that time limit 
start to run from a later date in such cases or does a longer time limit 
apply in those circumstances? 
Grounds 
I. 
1 The two applicants, who are Syrian nationals, are applying as parents for a visa for 
family reunification with their son living in Germany. 
2 Their son, who was born on 31 January 1999, entered the Federal Republic of 
Germany in August 2015. In response to the asylum application he had made on 
3 June 2016, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees granted him refugee 
status by decision of 15 May 2017. On 20 June 2017, the immigration authority of 
the party summoned to the main proceedings in this case granted him an 
Aufenthaltserlaubnis ([temporary] residence permit) as provided for in 
Paragraph 25(2) of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (Law on Residence) (‘AufenthG’). He 
now holds a Niederlassungserlaubnis ([permanent] settlement permit) as provided 
for in Paragraph 26(3) of the AufenthG. 
3 The applicants claim that, even while the asylum procedure was ongoing and 
immediately after he was granted refugee status, their son had been informed 
again and again, after making repeated enquiries with his guardian, with the 
lawyer instructed to act in the asylum procedure, with his voluntary guardian, with 
the competent immigration authority, with the job centre and with a refugee 
organisation, that it was not legally possible for his parents to apply for family 
reunification because the asylum procedure had not yet been completed or 
because he had already reached the age of majority when he was granted refugee 
status. This was based on the case-law of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal 
Administrative Court) to the effect that the right of the parents to be reunited with 
their child as a recognised refugee, as provided for in Paragraph 36(1) of the 
AufenthG, lasted only until the child reached the age of majority (BVerwG 
(Federal Administrative Court), judgment of 18 April 2013 (10 C 9/12) […] 
paragraph 17 et seq.). 
4 After learning of the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 12 April 2018 
(C-550/16), the applicants’ son, by letter of 24 April 2018, wrote to the 
immigration authority of the party summoned to the main proceedings in this case, 
the German Foreign Office, the defendant’s embassy in Ankara and the 
defendant’s consulate general in Istanbul to apply for a [temporary] residence 
permit for the purposes of family reunification for his parents. As a precautionary 
measure, he also applied for restitutio in integrum in relation to the three-month 
time limit to be observed in principle in accordance with the aforementioned 
judgment of the Court of Justice. By letter of 11 July 2018 sent to the defendant’s 
embassy in Ankara and its consulate general in Istanbul, the applicants applied for 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-571/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
visas for family reunification. On 20 November 2018, they went in person to the 
consulate general in Istanbul to file their application. 
5 The consulate general rejected their applications by decisions of 10 April 2019, on 
the ground that a refugee’s parents have the right to be reunited with the refugee 
only until the refugee reaches the age of majority. It stated that the judgment of 
the European Court of Justice 12 April 2018 is not binding because the position 
under Netherlands law is significantly different from that under German law on 
account of the parents’ independent right of residence in the former State. What is 
more, the parents did not apply for reunification promptly after the grant of 
refugee status.  
6 By judgment delivered on 30 March 2021, the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin 
(Administrative Court, Berlin) dismissed the action brought before it on 
14 August 2019. By way of grounds, it held that the right to reunification which 
parents enjoy under Paragraph 36(1) of the AufenthG presupposes that the person 
in question is a minor at the time of the decision of the administrative authority or 
the court adjudicating on the substance of the case. Any other interpretation of that 
provision would be incompatible with EU law. Neither do the applicants derive a 
right to reunification directly from Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 
2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification because 
they did not make their application within the three-month time limit laid down in 
the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 12 April 2018. There are no 
grounds for a longer time limit or for the time limit to start later. There is no scope 
for restitutio in integrum or clemency on grounds of force majeure. The fact that 
an interested party chooses of his or her own free will to refrain from taking action 
in good time because he or she assumes that his or her application or appeal will 
be unsuccessful is not a permissible impediment. 
7 On appeal, the applicants claimed before the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-
Brandenburg (Higher Administrative Court, Berlin-Brandenburg) that the fact that 
they failed to observe the three-month time limit laid down in the judgment of the 
European Court of Justice of 12 April 2018 cannot be relied on against them. The 
time limit does not start to run until the persons concerned are aware of it. This 
was not the case here. The applicants and their son could not have known before 
the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 April 2018 was 
published that there was a right to reunification notwithstanding that the son had 
reached the age of majority. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal 
Administrative Court) had hitherto held as supreme court in such matters that the 
right of parents to be reunited with a child recognised as a refugee, as provided for 
in Paragraph 36(1) of the AufenthG, presupposes that the child continues to be a 
minor, in keeping with the directive on family reunification. What is more, the 
three-month time limit had not previously been laid down by legislation but was 
simply created by the European Court of Justice by way of judge-made law. 
However, the practical effectiveness of EU law requires that the persons 
concerned must be in a position – if necessary, with legal advice – to know their 
rights. 
KREIS BERGSTRAßE 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
II. 
8 The proceedings in this dispute must be stayed. It is necessary to obtain from the 
European Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU a preliminary ruling on the 
questions set out in the operative part of this order. These questions concern the 
interpretation of Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 
22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (‘Directive 2003/86/EC’). 
9 1. The legal assessment is governed in German law by the Aufenthaltsgesetz (Law 
on residence) (AufenthG) in the current version thereof published on 25 February 
2008 (BGBl. I p. 162), as last amended by Article 3 of the Law of 8 May 2024 
(BGBl. I No 152). 
10 The relevant legal framework is accordingly formed primarily by the following 
provisions of the [German] national Aufenthaltsgesetz (Law on residence) 
(AufenthG): 
11 Paragraph 6 Visa 
(…) 
12 (3) Longer stays in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany (the Federal 
Republic) shall require a visa for that territory (a national visa) which shall be 
issued prior to entry into the Federal Republic. It shall be issued in accordance 
with the provisions applicable to the [temporary] residence permit, the EU Blue 
Card, the ICT [(Intra-Corporate Transfer)] Card, the [permanent] settlement 
permit and the EU long-term residence permit. (…) 
(…) 
13 Paragraph 36 Reunification of parents and other family members 
14 (1) By way of derogation from Paragraph 5(1), point 1, and Paragraph 29(1), 
point 2, a [temporary] residence permit shall be issued to the parents of a minor 
foreign national in possession of a [temporary] residence permit under 
Paragraph 23(4), Paragraph 25(1) or (2), first sentence, first alternative, a 
[permanent] settlement permit under Paragraph 26(3) or, following the issue of a 
[temporary] residence permit under Paragraph 25(2), first sentence, second 
alternative, a [permanent] settlement permit under Paragraph 26(4), if there is no 
parent with right of custody resident in the Federal Republic.  
(…) 
15 In accordance with Paragraph 25(2) of the AufenthG, a [temporary] residence 
permit is to be issued to a foreign national if the Federal Office for Migration and 
Refugees has granted him or her refugee status within the meaning of 
Paragraph 3(1) of the Asylgesetz (Law on Asylum) or subsidiary protection within 
the meaning of Paragraph 4(1) of the Asylgesetz. In accordance with 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-571/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
Paragraph 7(1), first sentence, of the AufenthG, the [temporary] residence permit 
is a residence document of limited duration. 
16 In accordance with Paragraph 26(3) of the AufenthG, a [permanent] settlement 
permit is to be issued to a foreign national in possession of a [temporary] 
residence permit under Paragraph 25(1) or (2), first sentence, first alternative, if he 
or she has been in possession of the [temporary] residence permit for five years or 
for three years and other conditions are met. In accordance with Paragraph 9(1), 
first sentence, of the AufenthG, the [permanent] settlement permit is a residence 
document of unlimited duration. 
17 2. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are relevant to the judgment to 
be given. 
18 Whether the applicants’ appeal is successful, because they are eligible for a visa to 
be reunited with their son living in Germany, depends on whether the failure to 
observe the time limit of three months from the grant of refugee status (see 
judgment of the European Court of Justice of 12 April 2018 (C-550/16, 
paragraph 61), can be relied on against them, even though, in accordance with the 
case-law of the German supreme court in such matters, the parents were no longer 
entitled to family reunification when their son was granted refugee status because 
he had already reached the age of majority by then and the judgment of the 
European Court of Justice of 12 April 2018 had not yet been delivered, meaning 
that any judicial remedy under national law would – contrary to EU law – have 
been unsuccessful.  
19 a) The three-month time limit has not been observed here because the applicants’ 
son was granted refugee status in May 2017, but the visa application was certainly 
not filed before 24 April 2018.  
20 The other conditions for the issue of a visa for family reunification, on the other 
hand, are met.  
21 The fact that the applicants’ son reached the age of majority on 31 January 2017 
does not preclude a right to family reunification under Article 10(3)(a) of 
Directive 2003/86/EC. According to the judgment of the European Court of 
Justice of 12 April 2018 (C-550/16, paragraph 64), a third-country national or 
stateless person who was below the age of 18 at the moment of his or her entry 
into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum 
application, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of 
majority and is therefore granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for 
the purposes of Article 2(f) in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 
2003/86/EC. The applicants’ son fulfils those conditions.  
22 The parents’ right to reunification can be asserted on the basis of Paragraph 36(1) 
of the AufenthG, which is intended to transpose Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 
2003/86/EC. The condition which that provision lays down as the defining 
criterion for its application, namely that the child with whom reunification is to 
KREIS BERGSTRAßE 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
take place must be a ‘minor’, can be interpreted, in conformity with EU law, in 
accordance with the principles of the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 
12 April 2018 (see to this effect, in particular, OVG Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher 
Administrative Court, Berlin-Brandenburg), judgment of 23 April 2024 (OVG 3 B 
45/23)). The outcome is no different if an interpretation of Paragraph 36(1) of the 
AufenthG in conformity with EU law is not considered possible. In that event, the 
right to reunification could in any case be asserted on the basis of the direct 
application of Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86/EC (see to this effect 
BVerwG (Federal Administrative Court), orders for reference of 23 April 2020 (1 
C 9.19 and 10.19) […], paragraphs 15 and 16). 
23 b) By the second question, the Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative 
Court) wishes to ascertain what legal consequences should be expected to follow 
in the present proceedings on the assumption that the three-month time limit does 
not run from the grant of refugee status in this instance. 
24 The outcome of the appeal proceedings depends on whether the three-month time 
limit starts to run from a later date, and, if so, from which event it is to be counted 
(for example, delivery of the judgment of the European Court of Justice on 
12 April 2018, the press release issued on the same date or later), or whether a 
longer time limit applies in this instance. 
25 From the documents currently in the case file and the proceedings to date it is 
clear to the Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court) that the 
applicants filed an effective visa application by the letter faxed to the defendant’s 
consulate general in Istanbul on 11 July 2018, rather than by their later personal 
attendance at the consulate general on 20 November 2018.  
26 3. The questions referred need to be answered by the European Court of Justice. 
27 The judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 April 2018 (C-550/16) does not 
provide a direct answer to the issue raised by the situation in the present case, 
which is characterised by the fact that the refugee, having reached the age of 
majority, had already been enjoying the benefit of international protection for 
more than three months when the judgment of the Court of Justice became known 
and the applicants, as the refugee’s parents, had not applied for family 
reunification before that judgment became known because they – rightly – 
considered any such application to be futile on account of the conflicting practice 
of the national administrative authorities and the conflicting case-law of the 
supreme court in such matters. In addition to the present case, there are other cases 
in which the same questions arise. 
28 Up until the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 April 2018 (and, moreover, 
thereafter too), German diplomatic missions and the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 
(Federal Administrative Court) had proceeded on the premiss that the parents of a 
refugee who had entered the country as an unaccompanied minor and had applied 
for asylum as a minor, but who had reached the age of majority during the asylum 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-571/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
procedure, had no realistic prospect of successfully applying for family 
reunification on the basis of Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86/EC. By 
judgment of 18 April 2013, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal 
Administrative Court) held that the right of parents to be reunited with an 
unaccompanied minor refugee under Paragraph 36(1) of the AufenthG exists only 
until the child reaches the age of majority (see BVerwG (Federal Administrative 
Court), judgment of 18 April 2013 (10 C 9.12) […], paragraph 17 et seq.; 
thereafter, OVG Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher Administrative Court, Berlin-
Brandenburg), judgment of 11 July 2016 (OVG 3 B 18.15) […], paragraph 19 et 
seq.). It based that finding on the fact that Paragraph 36(1) of the AufenthG 
transposes Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86/EC (see BVerwG (Federal 
Administrative Court), judgment of 18 April 2013 (10 C 9.12) […], 
paragraph 12), but did not complain of any insufficient transposition of that 
directive. In the light of that case-law and the defendant’s customary decision-
making practice following its adoption, the parents of a refugee having reached 
the age of majority were entitled, up until the judgment of the European Court of 
Justice of 12 April 2018, to consider any successful enforcement of their right to 
family reunification on the basis of Article 10(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC to be 
ruled out. 
29 What is more, the applicants could not previously have been aware of the three-
month time limit which the Court of Justice required to be observed in its 
judgment of 12 April 2018. 
30 The Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court) takes the view that 
the three-month time limit prescribed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
12 April 2018 cannot be applied unchanged to circumstances such as those 
obtaining here, to the detriment of the applicants. It therefore falls to be clarified 
how else the reasonable time limit that must be observed in accordance with the 
judgment of 12 April 2018 (see ECJ, judgment of 12 April 2018 (C-550/16, 
paragraph 61) is to be determined in the present case. One option might be to take 
the date of the judgment of 12 April 2018 as the starting point of the time limit. 
However, since there are several possible solutions and the 
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court) cannot interpret 
Article 10(3)(a) independently, some clarification from the Court of Justice is 
required.  
31 This order is unappealable […]. 
[…] 
[Signatures]