REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification
Date: 2019-03-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, family migration, foreign national, free movement of persons, national implementing measure, residence permit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.3.2019 COM(2019) 162 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification  
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 

On 22 September 2003 the Council adopted Directive 2003/86/EC setting out common rules 
on the exercise of the right to family reunification by third-country nationals residing lawfully 
in  Member  States  (hereinafter  “the  Directive”).  It  applies  to  all  Member  States  except 
Denmark, Ireland, and the UK1. In accordance with Article 3(3) of the Directive, it does not 
regulate the situation of third-country nationals who are family members of an EU citizen. 

For the past 30 years, family reunification has been one of the main reasons of immigration to 
the  EU.  In  2017,  472,994  were  admitted  to  the  EU-25  on  grounds  of  family  reunification, 
amounting to 28% of all first permits issued to third-country nationals in the EU-252. 

In many Member States, family reunification accounts for a large share of legal migration. In 
2008,  the  Commission  published  its  first  Report  on  the  application  of  the  Directive3, 
highlighting  the  different  policy  choices  taken  by  Member  States  on  how  to  manage 
effectively the large inflow of migrants on the grounds of family reunification.  In the recent 
years, many Member States have introduced or revised in particular  the family reunification 
rules for refugees (and also for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, who are excluded from 
the scope of the Directive). In spite of the recent migratory challenges and high numbers of 
applicants for international protection, beneficiaries of international protection have continued 
to benefit from more favourable family reunification rules as compared to other categories of 
third-country  nationals,  and  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  overall  benefit  from  a 
similar level of legally-ensured protection as refugees4. 

The Commission has been monitoring these policy and legislative choices that need to remain 
within  the  margin  of  discretion  offered  by  the  Directive,  and  respect  the  right  to  family 
reunification set out therein. In 2014, the Commission published a Communication5 providing 
guidance  to  Member  States  on  how  to  apply  the  Directive.  This  guidance  document  has 
provided  for  a  consistent  interpretation  of  the  main  provisions  of  the  Directive  that  led  to 
meaningful changes in the laws and practices of some Member States6.  

The  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU)  has  also  played  a  crucial  role  in  the 
implementation of the Directive, providing an extensive case law on the interpretation of the 
most sensitive provisions of the Directive, by mainly addressing preliminary questions sent by 
the national courts of the Member States.  

This report gives an overview of the current situation on the implementation of the Directive 
by Member States, focusing on the key issues that have emerged from the Commission's own 
compliance  analysis,  complaints  received  and  relevant  judgements  of  the  CJEU.  In  this 
respect, it is worth stressing that the Commission has received numerous complaints related to 
the  family  reunification  of  third-country  nationals7.  The  main  issues  raised  concern:  the 
refusal to issue visas or permits, proof of identity or family ties as ground for rejection, long 
processing times by administrations, disproportionate charges for issuing permits, the notion 

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  

6  
7  

In this report, “Member States” means the Member States bound by the Directive, alternatively referred as EU-25. 
Source: Eurostat, [migr_resfam] of 25.09.18. 
COM(2008) 610 final of 8 October 2008. 
EMN study on Family Reunification of Third-Country Nationals in the EU, April 2017, p. 43. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  guidance  for  application  of 
Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, COM(2014) 210 final. 
EMN study (2017), p. 12. 
However, many of those complaints falls outside the scope of the applicable EU legislation, as they concern questions 
related  to  access  to  citizenship  of  a  Member  State,  family  members  of  “non-mobile”  EU  citizens,  and  general 
complaints about alleged discrimination or maladministration.  

1 

 
 
                                                            
of stable and regular resources, access to employment for family members, incorrectly applied 
waiting periods, and the proportionality of pre-integration conditions.  
A recent study carried out by the European Migration Network (EMN)8, which assessed both 
legal and practical challenges in the implementation of the Directive, has also informed this 
report. The study highlighted three major problems faced by applicants. The first concerns the 
obligation  to  appear  in  person  at  a  diplomatic  mission  to  submit  their  application9;  this 
obligation  creates  a  practical  problem  in  particular  for  applicants  to  smaller  Member  States 
that do not necessarily have a diplomatic representation in every country. The second major 
problem  concerns  the  often  very  long  processing  time  of  an  application10.  The  third  major 
problem is the lack of documents necessary to process the application11, especially the proof 
of identity and family ties. From the perspective of national authorities, the study reported as a 
major challenge the detection of forced or sham marriages or registered partnerships and false 
declarations  of  parenthood12,  which  requires  thorough  investigations  and  in  turn  may  affect 
the processing time of applications.  

II. COMPLIANCE OF THE TRANSPOSITION MEASURES 

Right to family reunification – Article 1 

The Directive recognises the existence of a right to family reunification. It imposes a precise 
positive obligation on Member States, requiring them in cases determined by the Directive to 
authorise family reunification of certain members of the sponsor’s family and leaving them no 
leeway in this. The subject matter of the Directive has been correctly reflected in the national 
legislation  of  all  Member  States,  even  if  most  of  them13  do  not  have  a  specific  provision 
corresponding to Article 1, which defines the purpose of the Directive and therefore does not 
need a specific transposition. 

Definitions of key terms – Article 2 

Overall, the definitions set by the Directive have been correctly transposed by the majority of 
Member  States.  In  those  cases  where  Member  States  have  not  explicitly  transposed  the 
definitions,  such  in  particular  the  definition  of  “sponsor”,  they  can  nonetheless  be  inferred 
from the provisions establishing the conditions for family reunification. 

Scope of application – Article 3 

Sponsor 

For  third-country  nationals  to  be  eligible  as  sponsors  for  family  reunification  they  must 
legally  reside  in  a  Member  State,  have  a  residence  permit  valid  for  at  least  one  year 
(irrespective of the title of residence) and have reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of 
permanent residence. 

Article 3 has been correctly transposed by all Member States. It must be emphasised that the 
national  legal  frameworks  of  some  Member  States  contain  provisions  that    are  more 
favourable than Article 3 (for example, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovakia have 
not  transposed  the  criterion  of  reasonable  prospects  of  obtaining  the  right  of  permanent 
residence), which is allowed by the Directive. 

8  
9  
10  
11  
12  
13  

EMN study (2017), p. 37. 
AT, EE, FI, HU, IT, LU, LV, NL, SE. 
AT, BE, DE, FR, IE, IT, NL, SE. 
AT, BE, CY, FI, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL. 
BE, EE, IT. 
With the exception of EE, ES and MT. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
Family members of EU citizens  

Both the sponsor and their family member need to be third-country nationals to fall under the 
scope of the Directive. This implies that the family members of EU citizens are excluded from 
the  Directive.  They  may  however  be  covered  by  Directive  2004/38/EC14,  if  they  are  family 
members of EU citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which 
they  are  a  national.  However,  family  reunification  of  EU  citizens  residing  in  the  Member 
State of their nationality is not subject to Union law and remains a national competence. In a 
recent judgement15, the CJEU held that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, 
to  interpret  provisions  of  the  Family  Reunification  Directive,  if  that  provision  was  made 
directly  and  unconditionally  applicable  under  national  law  to  family  members  of  an  EU 
citizen who has not exercised their right of free movement. 

In practice, these rules are largely similar in Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 
Where differences exist, the provisions for third-country nationals who are family members of 
non-mobile  EU  citizens  are  normally  more  favourable.  Such  provisions  may  include,  for 
example16:  a  broader  definition  of  family17;  a  waiver  of  specific  conditions  that  must  be 
fulfilled  by  family  members18;  no  income  threshold19;  a  lower  reference  amount  or  less 
onerous assessment of financial circumstances20; no waiting period or a shortened one21; no 
quota requirement22; free access to the labour market23.  

Asylum applicants and beneficiaries of temporary or subsidiary protection 

The  Directive  also  excludes  from  its  scope  sponsors  who  are  beneficiaries  of  temporary  or 
subsidiary  protection,  as  well  as  asylum  applicants24.  However,  the  Commission  in  its 
guidance  Communication25  stressed  that  the  Directive  should  not  be  interpreted  as  obliging 
Member States to deny beneficiaries of temporary or subsidiary protection the right to family 
reunification. The guidance also encouraged Member States to adopt rules that grant to those 
categories of people family reunification rights that are similar to the rights of refugees. In a 
recent  judgement26,  the  CJEU  held  that  it  is  competent  to  interpret  the  provisions  of  the 
Directive  in  respect  of  the  right  to  family  reunification  of  a  beneficiary  of  subsidiary 
protection,  if  these  provisions  were  made  directly  and  unconditionally  applicable  to  such  a 
situation under national law. 

In  many  Member  States  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  can  apply  for  family 
reunification  under  the  same  conditions  as  refugees27.  In  certain  Member  States,  the  law 
provides  for  family  reunification  with  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  at  the  earliest 
three years (Austria) or two years (Latvia) from the date of obtaining subsidiary status.  

14  

15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  

25  
26  
27  

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the 
Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. 
Judgment of 7 November 2018, C and A (C-257/17) ECLI:EU:C:2018:876. 
Source: EMN study (2017), p. 30. 
AT, BE, HU, LV 
Age requirement in LT, SK. 
FI, FR, PL, SE. 
HR, IE, SI. 
CY, DE, PL. 
AT. 
CY, HR, HU, LV. 
Council  Directive  2001/55/EC  explicitly  entitles  beneficiaries  of  temporary  protection  to  reunite  with  their  family 
members. 
COM(2014) 210 final. 
CJEU, Judgment of 7 November 2018, K and B (C-380/17) ECLI:EU:C:2018:877. 
BE, BG, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, SI, SK – source: EMN study (2017), p. 20. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
Any marriage or registered partnership with beneficiaries of subsidiary protection or persons 
granted refugee status must have already existed in the country of origin or prior to entry28. 
Cyprus does not allow beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to apply for family reunification, 
whilst  other  Member  States  such  as  Czechia  allow  them  to  do  so  under  a  national  scheme 
(parallel to  the  Family  Reunification  Directive).  Finally,  Germany  recently restricted  family 
reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, suspending family reunification for all 
those who were granted a residence permit under subsidiary protection after mid-March 2016. 
Since  August  2018,  this  suspension  has  been  partially  lifted  for  a  monthly  quota  of  1,000 
family members.   

Eligible family members – Article 4(1) 

Family members entitled to join the sponsor include as a minimum the “nuclear family”: the 
sponsor’s spouse and the minor children of the sponsor or spouse.  

Spouse 

Article 4(1) grants the sponsor’s spouse the right to family reunification. Most of the Member 
States have correctly transposed this requirement.  
In case of polygamous marriage,29 the reunification of only one spouse is permitted, and the 
entry  of  children  of  other  spouses  to  join  the  sponsor  may  be  refused  (Article  4(4)).  Also, 
Member  States  can  fix  a  minimum  age  for  both  sponsor  and  spouse  (Article  4(5)).  Most 
Member  States  have  applied  this  optional  clause,  arguing  that  it  can  help  prevent  forced 
marriages.  Five  Member  States30  set  the  age  at  21  years,  the  maximum  threshold  under  the 
Directive.  
Most  Member  States’  laws  allow  same-sex  partners  to  apply  for  family  reunification31.  A 
smaller  number  of  Member  States  does  not  permit  this32.  Same-sex  couples  have  an  equal 
right to family reunification as spouses from opposite sexes in nine Member States33.  
In its judgement in case Marjan Noorzia34, the CJEU had to decide whether the minimum age 
of  21  provided  under  Article  4(5)  of  the  Directive  refers  to  the  date  when  the  application 
seeking  family  reunification  is  lodged,  or  the  date  when  the  application  is  ruled  upon.  The 
Court  held  that  Article 4(5)  must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  provision  does  not 
preclude a rule that spouses and registered partners must have reached the age of 21 when the 
application is lodged.  

In  this  judgement  the  Court  analysed  the  objective  and  proportionality  of  the  minimum  age 
requirement and stated: “In that regard, it must be noted that the minimum age fixed by the 
Member States by virtue of Article 4(5) of Directive 2003/86 ultimately corresponds with the 
age  at  which,  according  to  the  Member  State  concerned,  a  person  is  presumed  to  have 
acquired  sufficient  maturity  not  only  to  refuse  to  enter  into  a  forced  marriage  but  also  to 
choose voluntarily to  move  to  a different  country with  his or her  spouse, in  order to lead a 
family  life  with  him  or  her  there  and  to  become  integrated  there.  (….)  Further,  such  a 
measure does not undermine the purpose of preventing forced marriages since it permits the 
presumption  that,  due  to  greater  maturity,  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  influence  the  persons 
concerned  to  contract  a  forced  marriage  and  accept  family  reunification  if  they  must  have 

28  
29  
30  
31  
32  
33  
34  

AT, DE, EE, HR, NL, SI. 
This issue has not yet led to any judgment from the EU Court of Justice. 
BE, CY, LT, MT, NL. 
AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, LU, NL, SE, SI. 
EE, LT, LV, MT, PL, SK. 
AT, BE, CY, CZ, FI, LU, NL, SI, SE. Source: EMN study (2017), p. 21-22. 
CJEU, M. Noorzia, C-338/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2092.  

4 

 
 
                                                            
reached the age of 21 by the date when the application is lodged than it would be if they were 
under 21 at that date.” 

Minor children  

Minor children are those below the age of majority set at national level (commonly 18 years) 
and  who  are  not  married.  The  Directive  allows  two  restrictions  for  family  reunification  of 
minor children, provided they were already part of the Member State’s national legislation on 
the date of implementation of the Directive (so-called “standstill clause”).  

Firstly, children over 12 years arriving independently of the rest of their families may have to 
prove that they meet the integration conditions required under national legislation. However, 
the  CJEU  held35  that  this  provision  must  respect  the  best  interests  of  the  child.  Only  DE 
applies this derogation.  

Secondly,  Member  States  may  require  that  applications  concerning  family  reunification  of 
children  must  be  submitted  before  the  age  of  15  (Article  4(6)).  No  Member  State  has 
implemented  this  restriction.  As  this  provision  is  a  standstill  clause,  such  limitations  under 
national legislation are now prohibited. 

As  regards  minor  children,  two  judgements  of  the  CJEU  are  of  particular  interest.  In  the 
joined cases O. and S. and Maahanmuuttovirasto36 the Court confirmed the general rule that 
the  substantive  provisions  of  the  Directive37  must  be  interpreted  and  applied  in  the  light  of 
Articles 7 and 24(2) and (3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 5(5) of that 
Directive.  These  provisions  require  the  Member  States  to  assess  the  applications  for 
reunification  in  question  in  the  interests  of  the  children  concerned  and  with  a  view  to 
promoting family life.  
In  another  more  recent  case38,  A  and  S,    the  CJEU  held  that  in  matters  relating  to  family 
reunification  of  refugees,  the  date  of  arrival  on  Member  State  territory  and  not  the  date  of 
application  for  family  reunification  should  be  taken  into  account  for  assessing  whether  a 
person  falls  under  the  definition  of  ‘unaccompanied  minor’.  According  to  the  judgement 
delivered  in  this  case,  the  term  ‘unaccompanied  minor’  must  therefore  be  understood  as 
covering  a  person  who  was  under  the  age  of  18  when  they  arrived,  attained  the  age  of  18 
during  the  asylum  procedure,  and  after  having  attained  the  age  of  18  applied  for  family 
reunification. 

Other family members – Article 4(2) and (3) 

In addition to the nuclear family, Member States may include, as family members, dependent 
parents  and  unmarried  adult  children  of  the  sponsor  or  their  spouse,  and  unmarried  partner 
(duly attested long-term relationship or registered partnership) of the sponsor. 

Several Member States decided to widen the number of family members authorised to apply. 
Many of them39, however, chose not to include first-degree relatives in the direct ascending 
line  of  the  sponsor  or  his/her  spouse,  where  they  are  dependent  on  them  and  do  not  enjoy 
proper family support in the country of origin. Italy has partially applied this option by only 
extending it to the first-degree relatives of the sponsor.  

35  
36  
37  
38  
39  

CJEU, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, C-540/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:429, para 75. 
CJEU, Maahanmuuttovirasto, C-356/11 and 357/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:776.  
In this case the financial resources requirement under Article 7(1)(c) – for more details see section 4.3.3. 
CJEU, A, S, C-550/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:248. 
AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EL, FI, FR, LV, MT, NL, PL. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
Apart from the first-degree relatives of the sponsor or their spouse, Article 4(2) also grants the 
possibility  of  family  reunification  to  the  adult  unmarried  children  of  the  sponsor  or  their 
spouse, where they are objectively unable to provide for their own needs on account of their 
state of health. This option is applied by fifteen Member States40. 

Article 4(3) allows for the entry and residence of the registered partner of the sponsor and the 
unmarried partner with whom the sponsor is in a duly attested stable long-term relationship. 
Only ES and SE fully apply this option. 

Requirements for exercising the right to family reunification 

Article  7  allows  Member  States  to  impose  two  separate  types  of  requirements.  Firstly,  it 
allows them to require evidence that the sponsor has accommodation, sickness insurance, and 
stable  and  regular  resources.  Secondly,  it  allows  them  to  request  third-country  nationals  to 
comply with integration measures. 

Accommodation – Article 7(1)(a) 

Member  States  have  the  option  to  request  evidence  that  the  sponsor  has  accommodation 
regarded  as  normal  for  a  comparable  family  in  the  same  region.  Most  Member  States  have 
implemented  this  option,  with  the  exception  of  Finland,  Croatia,  the  Netherlands,  and 
Slovenia.  The  size  of  the  accommodation  considered  suitable  varies  across  Member  States, 
though  some (Latvia, Sweden)  do not  appear to have  set specific criteria  for assessing  such 
suitability41.  

Sickness insurance – Article 7(1)(b) 

The  possibility  to  request  sickness  insurance  has  been  widely  used,  except  for  Bulgaria, 
Finland, France, Portugal and Sweden. 

Stable and regular resources – (Article 7(1)(c) 

All  Member  States  impose  the  requirement  of  stable  and  regular  resources.  However,  this 
requirement must be applied in line with the interpretation laid down by the CJEU, which sets 
out  that  the  relevant  national  provisions  must  not  undermine  the  objective  and  the 
effectiveness of the Directive. 
In the case Chakroun42, the Court limited the room for manoeuvre of Member States in setting 
the resources requirement. In particular, it ruled that Member States are not allowed to refuse 
family  reunification  to  a  sponsor  who  has  stable  and  regular  resources  that  are  sufficient  to 
maintain  themselves  and  the  members  of  their  family,  but  who,  given  the  level  of  their 
resources,  will  nevertheless  be  entitled  to  claim  special  assistance  in  order  to  meet 
exceptional,  individually  determined,  essential  living  costs,  tax  refunds  granted  by  local 
authorities on the basis of his/her income, or income-support measures in the context of local-
authority minimum-income policies. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Directive must be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation that, in applying the income requirement set out 
in  Article  7(1)(c),  draws  a  distinction  according  to  whether  the  family  relationship  arose 
before or after the sponsor entered the territory of the host Member State. 
In  the  joined  cases  O. and  S.  and  Maahanmuuttovirasto43,  the  Court  held  that the resources 
requirement  must  be  applied  in  the  light  of  Articles  7  (right  to  family  life)  and  24  (best 
interest of the child) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The CJEU 

40  
41  
42  
43  

BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, HR, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
EMN study (2017), p. 21-22. 
CJEU, Chakroun, C-578/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:117. 
CJEU, Maahanmuuttovirasto, C-356/11 and 357/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:776. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
stressed that the authorisation to family reunification being the general rule and objective of 
the Directive, the faculty provided for in Article 7(1)(c) of the Directive must be interpreted 
strictly. Member States must therefore not use their discretionary powers in a way that would 
undermine the objective and the effectiveness of that Directive. 
In  the  Khachab  case44,  the  Court  confirmed  that  national  provisions  providing  for  a 
prospective  financial  resources  assessment  based  on  preceding  income  patterns  was 
compatible  with  EU  law.  The  Court  held  that  Article 7(1)(c)  of  the  Directive  must  be 
interpreted as allowing the national competent authorities to refuse an application for family 
reunification  on  the  basis  of  a  prospective  assessment  of  the  likelihood  of  the  sponsor 
retaining, or failing to retain, the necessary stable and regular resources in the year following 
the  date  of  submission  of  that  application.  The  Court  added  that  the  assessment  should  be 
based on the pattern of the sponsor’s income in the six months preceding that date. 
Most Member States45 have set a reference income threshold for assessing the sufficiency of 
financial resources required for exercising the right to family reunification. In many Member 
States  this  sum  is  equivalent  to46  or  higher  than47  the  basic  minimum  monthly  income  or 
minimum subsistence amount per month of that country.  

In other Member States, the threshold is set at a specific amount, albeit the amount may vary 
depending on the size of the family48. Most Member States49 apply exemptions to the income 
threshold, notably for refugees and/or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection50. Some Member 
States have no income threshold at all, and assess the resources requirement on a case-by-case 
basis51.  

Integration measures - Article 7(2) 

This  optional  clause  enables  Member  States  to  require  that  third-country  nationals  comply 
with  integration  measures,  which  in  the  case  of  family  members  of  refugees  can  only  be 
applied  once  family  reunification  is  granted52.  The  Commission  has  closely  monitored  the 
implementation of this clause and has asked some Member States for clarification, as national 
provisions  should  not  impede  the  “effet  utile”  of  the  Directive  and  need  to  comply  with 
relevant case law of the CJEU53.  

Most Member States did not apply this option, though such measures are under investigation 
or  subject  to  proposals  in  some  instances54.  Where  integration  measures  exist  prior  to 
admission  for  family  reunification,  Member  States  usually  require  family  members  to 
demonstrate basic language proficiency; exemptions apply to family members of refugees or 
(in some cases) beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.  

Language  classes  or  online  language  tutorials  are  usually  taken  at  the  initiative  of  family 
members, and costs arising from these lessons must be borne by them55. Fees depend on the 

44  
45  
46  
47  
48  
49  
50  
51  
52  
53  

54  
55  

CJEU, Khachab; C-558/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:285. 
AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SI, SK. 
AT, BG, DE, FR, LT, LU, LV, NL, SI, SK. 
BE, MT, PL. 
CZ, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, IT. Source: EMN study (2017), p. 25. 
BE, BG, FI, DE, HR,IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, SE, SI, SK. 
AT, BE, BG, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, LU, LV, SE, SI, SK, NL. 
CY, HU. Source: EMN study (2017), p. 26. 
Refugees are required to fulfil integration conditions for family formation in the NL. 
See CJEU judgments in cases C-153/14, K and A, ECLI:EU:C:2015:453; C-579/13, P and S, ECLI:EU:C:2015:369  
and C-540/03, Parliament / Council, ECLI:EU:C:2006:429. 
FI, LU. 
AT, DE, NL. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
country of origin, course provider or course format56. Some Member States may additionally 
require family members to acquire further language proficiency after admission (usually A2 
or  B1)57,  or  to  take  a  civic  integration  exam  after  admission58  –  as  part  of  their  general 
integration programme or as part of requirements for permanent settlement in the country59. 
Free-of-charge language training may be provided in some instances60.  

Next  to  language  proficiency,  Member  States’  integration  programmes  may  also  include 
courses  about  the  country  history  and  values,  social  orientation  or  professional  guidance61. 
Further  integration  measures  may  also  take  the  form  of  reporting  to  an  integration  centre62, 
signing a declaration of integration63 or an integration contract64 prescribing civic training and 
language training. The non-respect of these integration measures may sometimes lead to the 
withdrawal/non-renewal of a residence permit or refusal of long-term permits65.  

The  objective  of  such  measures  is  to  facilitate  the  integration  of  family  members.  Their 
admissibility  under  the  Directive  depends  on  whether  they  serve  this  purpose  and  whether 
they  respect  the  principle  of  proportionality.  Their  admissibility  can  be  questioned  on  the 
basis of the accessibility of such courses or tests, how they are designed and/or organised (e.g. 
test materials, fees, venue), whether such measures or their impact serve purposes other than 
integration  (e.g.  high  fees  excluding  low-income  families).  The  procedural  safeguard  to 
ensure the right to mount a legal challenge should also be respected. 
In the Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v. K. and A. case66, the CJEU recognised in paras 53-
54  of  its  judgement  that:  “…it  cannot  be  disputed  that  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  of  the 
language  and  society  of  the  host  Member  State  greatly  facilitates  communication  between 
third  country  nationals  and  nationals  of  the  Member  State  concerned  and,  moreover, 
encourages interaction and the development of social relations between them. Nor can it be 
contested that the acquisition of knowledge of the language of the host Member State makes it 
less difficult for third country nationals to access the labour market and vocational training. 
(…) From that perspective, the requirement to pass a civic integration examination at a basic 
level is capable of ensuring that the nationals of third countries acquire knowledge which is 
undeniably useful for establishing connections with the host Member State.”  

However, in the same judgement (paras 56-58) the Court also indicated the limits of Member 
States  discretion  when  imposing  integration  conditions:  “The  principle  of  proportionality 
requires the conditions of application of such a requirement not to exceed what is necessary 
to achieve those aims. (…) The integration measures referred to in the first subparagraph of 
Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be aimed not at filtering those persons who will be able 
to  exercise  their  right  to  family  reunification,  but  at  facilitating  the  integration  of  such 
persons within the Member States.  Moreover, specific individual circumstances, such as the 
age, illiteracy, level of education, economic situation or health of a sponsor’s relevant family 
members must be taken into consideration (…)”. 

56  
57  
58  
59  
60  
61  
62  
63  
64  
65  
66  

EMN study (2017), p. 26. 
AT, NL. 
NL. 
AT, DE, LV, NL. 
EE, LV. 
BE, DE, EE, NL, SE. 
AT. 
BE, NL. 
FR. 
EMN study (2017), p. 26-27. 
CJEU, C-153/14, K and A, ECLI:EU:C:2015:453. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
Therefore,  in  line  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  national  legislation  transposing  the 
first  subparagraph  of  Article 7(2)  must  be  suitable  for  achieving  the  objectives  of  that 
legislation and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain them. 
In two recent judgements67, the CJEU further elaborated its case law on integration conditions 
in the specific context of Article 15 (granting of an autonomous permit).  

Waiting period and reception capacity – Article 8 

Article  8  sets  out  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  require  a  period  of  lawful  residence 
before a sponsor may be joined by their family members (first subparagraph), and to provide 
for  a  waiting  period  of  up  to  three  years  for  the  issue  of  a  residence  permit  in  cases  where 
their  previous  legislation  on  family  reunification  required  the  need  to  take  into  account 
reception capacities (second subparagraph).  

Many  countries  transposed  the  option  under  first  subparagraph.  However,  the  Commission 
identified  several  inconsistencies  in  the  implementation,  which  have  required  clarifications 
and  modifications  in  national  legislations  following  exchanges  with  the  Member  States 
concerned.  The  option  under  second  subparagraph  was  transposed  only  by  Austria  and 
Croatia. 

Many Member States do not set a waiting period before a sponsor’s family is eligible to apply 
for  family  reunification68.  Where  this  provision  applies,  the  waiting  period  can  be  between 
one69, one and a half70, two71 or three years72 from the point the sponsor became resident in 
the  country  or  received  a  final  decision  granting  international  protection,  with  exemptions 
granted by individual Member States73. 

Possible  restrictions  on  grounds  of  public  order,  public  security  and  public  health  - 
Article 6 

Overall, most Member States have correctly transposed Article 6, but a number of difference 
in  the  use  of  terminology  have  been  identified,  especially  for  the  term  “national  security”. 
Member States have used various methods when implementing this provision, some referring 
to the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis, some referring to a criminal offence with 
custodial sentence. 

Recital  14  of  the  Directive  provides  some  indication  of  what  might  constitute  a  threat  to 
public  policy  and  public  security.  Aside  from  that,  Member  States  are  free  to  set  their 
standards in line with the general principle of proportionality and Article 17 of the Directive, 
which requires them to take account of the nature and solidity of the persons’ relationship and 
duration  of  residence,  weighing  it  against  the  severity  and  type  of  offence  against  public 
policy or security. The public health criterion can be applied as long as illness or disability is 
not the sole ground for withdrawal or non-renewal of a residence permit. The terms “public 
policy”, “public security” and “public health” in Article 6 must be interpreted in the light of 
the case law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights. 

67  

68  
69  
70  
71  
72  
73 

CJEU,  Judgment  of  7  November  2018,  C  and  A  (C-257/17),  ECLI:EU:C:2018:876  and  Judgment  of  7  November 
2018, K (C-484/17), ECLI:EU:C:2018:878. 
BG, EE, IE, FI, HR, HU, IT, SI, SE, SK. 
ES, LU, NL. 
FR. 
CY, EL, HR, LT, LV, MT, PL. 
AT. 
EMN study (2017), p. 27-28. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
There is currently no general rule or well-established case law, according to which the public 
order  clauses  laid  down  in  the  family  reunification  directive  and  other  migration  directives, 
would always have to  be interpreted in the same way as  the public order clause in the Free 
Movement Directive 2004/38/EC (on which a significant CJEU jurisprudence exists).  
This was already confirmed in the Commission guidance on the application of the Directive74, 
which highlighted that even though the case law of the CJEU on the free movement directive 
is  not  directly  relevant  for  third-country  nationals,  it  may  serve  mutatis  mutandis  as 
background when defining the notions in question by analogy. Further interpretative guidance 
by  the  CJEU  can  be  expected  following  two  preliminary  references  submitted  in  cases  C-
381/18  and  C-  382/18  (both  pending)  in  which  the  Court  was  asked,  for  the  first  time,  to 
directly interpret the public order clauses of both Article 6(1) and (2) of the Directive. 

Application assessment procedure – Article 5 

The applicant – Article 5(1) 

Under  Article  5(1)  Member  States  must  decide  whether  the  person  entitled  to  submit  the 
application  is  the  family  member  or  the  sponsor.  Member  States  are  split  on  the 
implementation  of  this  Article:  in  some75  the  entitled  person  is  the  sponsor,  whereas  in 
others76 is the family member or both are entitled77. 

Place of application – Article 5(3) 

The Directive requires that the family member must reside outside the territory of the Member 
State at the time when the application is filed, and only allows for a derogation in appropriate 
circumstances.  All  Member  States  have  correctly  transposed  this  provision,  and  all  (except 
Romania  and  Bulgaria)  have  used  the  derogation  allowing  family  members  to  submit  their 
application in the territory of the Member State, if they are already residing lawfully there78, 
or where exceptional conditions justify it79, e.g. where there is an obstacle in doing so in the 
country of origin. 

Documentary evidence – first subparagraph of Article 5(2) 

The  list  of  required  documents  varies  between  Member  States:  some  have  a  detailed  list, 
while others just refer to general requirements and thereby leave authorities with considerable 
margin  of  appreciation.  The  Directive  sets  specific  provisions  for  refugees:  Member  States 
should take into account other evidence where a refugee cannot provide an official document 
proving the family ties (Article 11(2)). In general, in the absence of (reliable) documentation, 
Member  States  take  a  flexible  approach80,  especially  for  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection and their family members. They often accept a range of other means of proof, as 
long as they can check the identity of the applicants and the existence of family ties81. These 
include  documents  from  asylum  interviews,  evidence  from  an  appeal  hearing,  notarised 
declarations or written statements, photos of events, and receipts.  

74  
75  
76  
77  
78  
79  
80  
81  

COM (2014)210. 
BG, CY, EL, ES, FR, PL, SI 
AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, FI, HR, HU, LU, LV, SE, SK. 
IT, LT, LV, NL, PT, RO. 
BE, CZ, DE, EE, HR, HU, LV. 
AT, FI, LU. Source: EMN study (2017), p. 32. 
EMN study (2017), p. 33 and p. 37. 
In his opinion of 29 November 2018 in CJEU Case C-635/17 (pending), ECLI:EU:C:2018:973, AG Wahl suggested 
to impose an obligation of active cooperation on both applicants and authorities in case of insufficient documentary 
evidence. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
Member States may also request or suggest a DNA test, usually as a last resort, including in 
cases when doubt persists and a more reliable confirmation is needed. In spite of this flexible 
approach, the 2017 EMN study showed that the lack of documents to process the application 
is  one  of  the  most  frequently  mentioned  challenges82.  This  was  also  shown  in  some 
complaints received by the Commission, which in one case have led to information exchanges 
with the Member State concerned. 

Interviews and investigations – second subparagraph of Article 5(2) 

Most  Member  States  use  the  possibility  to  carry  out  interviews  and  to  conduct  other 
investigations  if  deemed  necessary  to  obtain  evidence  on  the  existence  of  a  family 
relationship. Only few Member States83 do not apply this option. 

To  be  admissible  under  EU  law,  the  interviews  and/or  other  investigations  must  be 
proportionate  –  thus  not  render  the  right  to  family  reunification  nugatory  –  and  respect 
fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and family life. The Commission has so 
far not identified any issues concerning the implementation of this provision. 

Fraud, marriage, partnership or adoption of convenience – Article 16(4) 

This provision allows Member States to conduct specific checks and inspections where there 
is  a  reason  to  suspect  fraud  or  a  marriage,  partnership  or  adoption  of  convenience.  Every 
national system contains rules to prevent family reunification if a relationship exists with the 
sole  purpose  of  obtaining  a  residence  permit.  The  option  is  implemented  in  the  national 
legislation  of  most  Member  States84.  Others85  partially  apply  the  provision,  which  is  not  a 
cause of concern for the Commission. 
In a recent preliminary reference86, the CJEU was asked to state whether Article 16(2)(a) must 
be  interpreted  as  precluding  the  withdrawal  of  a  residence  permit  if  the  acquisition  of  that 
residence permit was based on fraudulent information but the family member was unaware of 
the fraud.  

Fees 

In almost all Member States, applicants have to pay fees. The total amount varies depending 
on the Member State: on average, the fee is between EUR 50 and 150. The Directive is silent 
on the issue of administrative fees payable in the procedure. However, as stated in the 2008 
Commission Report, Member States should not set fees in a way which may undermine the 
Directive’s “effet utile”. 

On costs for “civic integration examinations”, the CJEU held that, while the Member States 
are free to require third-country nationals to pay various fees related to integration measures 
adopted under Article 7(2) of the Directive and to determine the amount of those fees, in line 
with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  the  level  at  which  those  fees  are  determined  must  not 
aim to, or have the effect of, making family reunification impossible or excessively difficult. 

That would be the case if the amount of the fees to take the civic integration examination were 
excessive by having a significant financial impact on the third-country nationals concerned87. 

82  
83  
84  
85  
86  
87  

AT, BE, CY, FI, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL. 
BG, EE, HR, NL, SI. 
AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EL, FI, HU, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK. 
EL, FI, LT, PL, SK. 
CJEU, Pending Case, Y.Z. and others (C-557/17). 
CJEU, C-153/14, K and A, ECLI:EU:C:2015:453, paras 64 and 65. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
Written notification and length of procedure – Article 5(4) 

The  national  competent  authority  is  obliged  under  the  first  subparagraph  of  Article  5(4),  to 
give a written notification of the decision to the applicant as soon as possible and in any event 
no later than nine months from the date on which the application was lodged. Most Member 
States  comply  with  this  provision,  applying  deadlines  under  the  nine-month  requirement. 
Under the second subparagraph, the time limit may be extended in exceptional circumstances 
linked to the complexity of the examination. The implementation of this provision raises no 
concern for the Commission. 

Best interest of the child – Article 5(5) 

Under Article 5(5), when examining an application, Member States should have due regard to 
the  best  interests  of  minor  children.  This  was  emphasised  by  the  CJEU  in  O.  and  S., 
Maahanmuuttovirasto88, and Parliament/Council89. Most Member States have complied with 
this obligation, but not all have explicitly transposed it for the purpose of reviewing a family 
reunification application. However, the obligation of taking into account the best interests of 
the child appears to be a general legal principle in the national legislation. 

Horizontal clause on relevant consideration – Article 17  

The  obligation  to  take  due  account  of  the  nature  and  solidity  of  the  person’s  family 
relationships,  the  duration  of  their  residence  in  the  Member  State  and  of  the  existence  of 
family, cultural  and social ties with their country of origin, and  thereby the need to apply a 
case-by-case  approach,  has  often  been  recalled  by 
in  case 
Parliament/Council of 200690. In line with that judgement, the mere reference to Article 8 of 
the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  does  not  seem  to  constitute  an  adequate 
implementation of Article 17. 

the  CJEU,  especially 

This  provision  has  been  correctly  implemented  by  most  Member  States.  The  principles  of 
proportionality  and  legal  certainty  (general  principles  of  EU  law)  must  be  applied  in  any 
decision  on  rejection,  withdrawal  or  refusal  to  renew  a  permit.  In  two  pending  cases91,  the 
CJEU was asked to assess the impact of Article 17 in the context of withdrawals of permits 
for public order reasons. 

Redress (Article 18) 

In general, Article 18 has been correctly transposed in all Member States. All have established 
the right to mount a legal challenge in line with this provision (though in different ways). No 
national provisions have been identified as being too burdensome or hinder the right to legal 
challenge.  

Entry and residence – articles 13 and 15 

Visa facilitation – Article 13(1) 

As  soon  as  a  family  reunification  application  has  been  accepted,  Member  States  must 
authorise  the  entry  of  the  family  members  and  grant  them  every  facility  for  obtaining  the 
requisite visas. Article 13(1) has been correctly transposed by most Member States. It must be 
pointed  out  that  facilitation  towards  obtaining  the  requisite  visa  is  mandatory  for  Member 
States.  

88  
89  
90  
91  

CJEU, Maahanmuuttovirasto, C-356/11 and 357/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:776. 
CJEU, C-540/03, Parliament / Council, ECLI:EU:C:2006:429. 
ibid. 
CJEU, pending cases C-381/18 and 382/18. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
Duration of residence – Article 13(2) and (3) 

Article  13(2)  lays  down  that  Member  States  must  grant  family  members  a  first  residence 
permit  of  at  least  one  year’s  duration,  which  shall  be  renewable.  Most  Member  States 
correctly transposed the provision; however, some of them explicitly state that the minimum 
validity of the residence permit is one year.  

Article  13(3)  provides  that  the  duration  of  the  residence  permits  granted  to  the  family 
members must in principle not go beyond the date of expiry of the residence permit held by 
the sponsor. All Member States correctly transposed this provision. 

Autonomous residence permit – Article 15 

The  first  subparagraph  of  Article  15(1)  provides  that  not  later  than  after  five  years  of 
residence, and provided that the family member has not been granted a residence permit for 
reasons  other  than  family  reunification,  the  spouse  or  unmarried  partner  or  a  child  who  has 
reached majority shall be entitled (upon application if required by the national legislation) to 
an autonomous permit. This provision has been correctly included within the legislation of the 
majority of the Member States (notwithstanding a few disparities concerning the duration of 
the  marital  status  or  the  counting  of  the  five-year  time  period,  though  not  raising  concerns 
about compliance). 

Article  15(3)  lays  down  an  option  granting  Member  States  the  right,  in  the  event  of 
widowhood,  divorce,  separation,  or  death  of  first-degree  relatives  in  the  direct  ascending  or 
descending line, to issue an autonomous residence permit (upon application if required by the 
national  legislation)  to  persons  who  have  entered  by  virtue  of  family  reunification  (it  also 
includes this possibility in the event of particularly difficult circumstances). The option was 
implemented by all Member States. 
In two recent judgements92 related to Article 15, the CJEU clarified that, although issuing an 
autonomous  residence  permit  is,  in  principle,  an  entitlement  arising  from  five  years  of 
residence in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, the EU legislature nevertheless 
authorised  the  Member  States  to  subject  the  grant  of  such  a  permit  to  certain  conditions, 
which it left to be defined by the Member States. 

In  particular, the CJEU  considered the possibility for a Member  State to impose  integration 
conditions for obtaining an autonomous permit under Article 15 of the Family Reunification 
Directive (C-257/17 and C-484/17) and clarified that such conditions are compatible with the 
Directive,  subject  to  their  proportionality  “Article 15  (…)  does  not  preclude  national 
legislation  which  permits  an  application  for  an  autonomous  residence  permit,  lodged  by  a 
third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family 
reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic 
integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed 
rules  for  the  requirement  to  pass  that  examination  do  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to 
attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals.”  

In its judgement  in case C-257/17 the Court also clarified a further procedural detail related 
to  the  issuance  date  of  autonomous  permits  and  stated  that  the  Directive  does  not  preclude 
national  legislation  which  provides  that  an  autonomous  residence  permit  cannot  be  issued 
earlier than the date on which it was applied for. 

92  

CJEU,  Judgment  of  7  November  2018,  C  and  A  (C-257/17),  ECLI:EU:C:2018:876  and  Judgment  of  7  November 
2018, K (C-484/17), ECLI:EU:C:2018:878. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
Access to education and employment – Article 14 

Article 14(1) lays down the areas in which the sponsor’s family members should enjoy equal 
treatment with the sponsor: access to education, employment, vocational guidance, initial and 
further training and retraining. The Directive further gives the possibility to Member States to 
decide, according to national law, the conditions under which family members shall exercise 
an employed or self-employed activity (Article 14(2)), and allows Member States to restrict 
access  to  employment  or  self-employment  activity  by  first-degree  relatives  in  the  direct 
ascending line or adult unmarried children to whom Article 4(2) applies (Article 14(3)). 

Overall, Member States have correctly transposed the equality requirements set out in Article 
14(1),  but  most  of  them93  have  not  applied  the  option  set  out  in  Article  14(2).  The  option 
under  Article  14(3)  has  been  adopted  only  by  Slovakia.  These  provisions  have  often  been 
implemented  in  the  national  legislation  together  with  the  general  principle  of  non-
discrimination. 

Family reunification of refugees – Articles 9 to 12 

Chapter  V  of  the  Directive  refers  to  a  series  of  derogations  granting  more  favourable 
provisions for the family reunification of refugees so as to take their particular situation into 
account. The key aspects are highlighted below. 

Article  10  sets  out  the  application  of  the  definition  of  family  members  to  the  family 
reunification of refugees. It provides for certain exceptions, and for specific rules with respect 
to  sponsors  who  are  unaccompanied  minors.  This  article  has  been  correctly  transposed  by 
most  Member  States.  In  a  recent  preliminary  reference94,  the  CJEU  was  asked  to  clarify 
whether  Member  States  are  allowed  to  use  the  “may  clause”  of  Article  10(2)  in  a  more 
restrictive  way  than  provided  for  in  the  Directive  and  to  allow  the  family  reunification  of 
other “dependent” family member only in those cases in which the dependency is related to 
the state of health. 

Article 11 sets out the submission and examination of the application for refugees. As stated 
in  Article  11(1),  the  submission  and  examination  of  the  application  to  grant  family 
reunification with a sponsor that has been granted refugee status should be carried out in line 
with Article 5, subject to Article 11(2).  

In line with Article 11(2), Member States should take into account other evidence with which 
the existence of a family relationship can be proven where a refugee cannot provide official 
documentary evidence of the family relationship. A decision rejecting an application may not 
be  based  solely  on  the  fact  that  documentary  evidence  is  lacking.  It  must  be  stressed  that 
compliance  issues  may  easily  arise  in  the  practical  implementation  of  this  provision,  and 
Member States should remain vigilant to the issue of documentary evidence from refugees. In 
the  E.  case95  (pending),  a  preliminary  question  was  referred  to  the  CJEU  concerning  the 
obligation  for  refugees  to  cooperate  and  explain  the  non-availability  of  documentary 
evidence. The impending judgement is likely to clarify this important issue. 

Article 12 provides that some of the family reunification facilitations offered to refugees are 
only applicable, if an application for family reunification is submitted within a period of three 
months after the granting of refugee status. In a recent judgement96, the CFEU confirmed, in 
principle, the absolute character of this time limit, but highlighted that this strict rule cannot 

93  
94  
95  
96  

Except for BE, BG, CY, EL, LU, MT. 
CJEU, Pending Case, Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (C-519/18). 
CJEU Case C-635/17 (pending). 
CJEU, Judgment of 7 November 2018, K and B (C-380/17) ECLI:EU:C:2018:877. 

14 

 
 
                                                            
apply  to  situations  in  which  particular  circumstances  render  the  late  submission  of  the 
application objectively excusable. 

III. CONCLUSIONS 

Since  2008,  the  implementation  state  of  play  of  the  family  reunification  Directive  has 
improved,  also  due  to  the  infringement  proceedings  launched  by  the  Commission  and  its 
guidance  Communication  published  in  2014,  as  well  as  to  the  numerous  judgments  of  the 
Court of Justice of the European Union. Member States have been investing major efforts to 
improve  and  adapt  their  national  legislations  so  that  they  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the 
Directive.  

In its First Report on implementation of the Directive from 2008, the Commission highlighted 
a  number  of  problematic  issues  of  implementation  regarding  visa  facilitation,  autonomous 
permits,  more  favourable  provisions  for  refugees,  the  best  interest  of  the  child  and  legal 
redress. Nonetheless, these issues mainly revolved around legal aspects of transposition, since 
Member States had not yet experienced practical application of these rules for a long time. 

The Commission Communication from 2014, which served as a guidance for the application 
of  the  Directive  highlighted  persistent  issues  in  national  legislations,  in  particular  a  few 
problematic cross-cutting issues that had clearly emerged, such as integration measures, stable 
and regular resources, the need to take into account effectively the best interest of the child 
and the more favourable provisions for the family reunification of refugees.  

Four years later, these core issues remain a challenge for some Member States, which should 
continue  to  seek  effective  application  of  the  Directive,  by  paying  specific  attention  to  the 
paramount  importance  of  the  fundamental  right  of  respect  for  family  life,  the  rights  of  the 
child and the right to an effective remedy. 

Moreover, as mentioned both in  the 2008 Report and 2014 Communication, the wording of 
the  Directive,  which  leaves  to  Member  States  relevant  room  for  discretion  in  its 
implementation, should not result in lowering the standards when applying “may” provisions 
on certain requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification in a too broad or 
disproportionate  way.  The  general  principles  of  EU  law,  first  and  foremost  proportionality 
and  legal  certainty,  must  be  regarded  as  the  main  key  in  assessing  the  compatibility  of 
national provisions with the Directive. 

As the guardian of the EU Treaties, the Commission has been regularly monitoring the legal 
and  practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  by  Member  States,  particularly  on  the  issues 
highlighted in this report. As family reunification remains a major challenge for the EU in the 
frame  of  migration  policy,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  closely  monitor  national 
legislations and administrative practices and may consider appropriate action – in line with its 
powers under the EU Treaties – including opening infringement procedures, where necessary. 

15