# Swiss Caselaw Document

**Case Identifier:** 5c28258f-5a1b-5999-bf2a-d9f8632cd809
**Source:** Bundesgericht ()
**Court Level:** federal
**Decision Date:** 2023-07-04
**Language:** en
**Title:** Bundesgericht (BGE) EGMR 04.07.2023 20230704_13258_18 (B.F. c. Suisse)
**Docket/Reference:** 
**URL:** https://entscheidsuche.ch/docs/CH_BGE/CH_BGE_012_20230704-13258-18_2023-07-04.html

## Full Text

Urteilskopf

13258/18

B.F. c. Suisse

Arrêt no. 13258/18, 04 juillet 2023

Regeste

Diese Zusammenfassung existiert nur auf Französisch.

SUISSE: Art. 8 CEDH. Rejet, pour non-respect d'une condition d'indépendance financière, de demandes de regroupement familial déposées par des réfugiés admis à titre provisoire et qui craignent d'être persécutés après être sortis illégalement de leur pays d'origine.

Contrairement aux réfugiés bénéficiant du droit d'asile, les personnes admises à titre provisoire n'ont droit au regroupement familial que si elles ne touchent pas l'aide sociale. Dans le cas des quatre requérants, trois Erythréens et un Chinois d'origine tibétaine, les autorités suisses ont estimé que cette condition n'était pas remplie.

La Cour relève que deux des quatre requérants occupaient un emploi et qu'une troisième requérante avait été déclarée médicalement inapte au travail. Elle estime que les autorités n'ont pas ménagé un juste équilibre entre l'intérêt des requérants à être réunis avec les membres de leur famille proche en Suisse et l'intérêt de la collectivité dans son ensemble à maîtriser l'immigration afin de protéger la prospérité économique du pays.

Dans le cas d'une quatrième requérante, à l'inverse, la Cour considère que les autorités n'ont pas outrepassé leur pouvoir discrétionnaire ou marge d'appréciation lorsque, dans la mise en balance des intérêts concurrents et dans leur décision de rejeter la demande de regroupement familial, elles ont pris en compte l'absence d'initiative de l'intéressée, laquelle était en mesure de travailler au moins à temps partiel, pour améliorer sa situation financière (ch. 109-134).

Conclusion: violation de l'art. 8 CEDH en ce qui concerne les requêtes 13258/18, 15500/18 et 57303/18. Non-violation de l'art. 8 CEDH en ce qui concerne la requête 9078/20.

Inhaltsangabe des BJ

(3. Quartalsbericht 2023)

Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens (Artikel 8 EMRK); Ablehnung der Gesuche um Familiennachzug von Flüchtlingen aufgrund ihrer Sozialhilfeabhängigkeit.

Bei den Beschwerdeführern handelt es sich um vier eritreische Staatsangehörige und einen chinesischen Staatsangehörigen, die zu verschiedenen Zeitpunkten zwischen 2008 und 2012 in die Schweiz eingereist waren und denen der Flüchtlingsstatus im Sinne des Abkommens über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge von 1951 zuerkannt wurde. Den Beschwerdeführern wurde eine vorläufige Aufnahme und kein Asyl gewährt, da davon ausgegangen wurde, dass die Gründe – die Furcht vor Verfolgung –, die in ihrem Fall die Zuerkennung des Flüchtlingsstatus rechtfertigten, die Folge ihrer illegalen Ausreise aus ihren jeweiligen Herkunftsstaaten waren. Die Behörden hatten vorliegend einen Anspruch auf Familiennachzug verneint. Das Recht auf dieses Verfahren ist in das Ermessen der Behörden gestellt und von der Erfüllung bestimmter Voraussetzungen abhängig. Insbesondere darf keine Abhängigkeit von der Sozialhilfe bestehen. Unter Berufung auf Artikel 8 (Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens) rügten alle Beschwerdeführer, es sei ihnen der Familiennachzug in die Schweiz verweigert worden. Drei Beschwerdeführer beanstandeten zudem unter dem Blickwinkel von Artikel 8 die Dauer des Verfahrens um Familiennachzug. Unter Verweis auf Artikel 14 (Diskriminierungsverbot) in Verbindung mit Artikel 8 machten vier Beschwerdeführer geltend, die Ablehnung ihrer Gesuche um Familiennachzug seien das Ergebnis einer Diskriminierung. Der Gerichtshof kam zum Schluss, dass die Verweigerung des beantragten Familiennachzugs bei drei Gesuchen gegen Artikel 8 der Konvention verstösst, und zwar im Fall jener Beschwerdeführer, die eine bezahlte Arbeit hatten, sowie im Fall einer Beschwerdeführerin, die später aus medizinischen Gründen für arbeitsunfähig erklärt wurde. Er stellte insbesondere fest, dass die Behörden bei der Anwendung der Voraussetzung der fehlenden Sozialhilfeabhängigkeit das Interesse der Beschwerdeführer, mit ihren engsten Familienmitgliedern in der Schweiz vereint zu werden, einerseits und das Interesse der Allgemeinheit an der Kontrolle der Einwanderung zum Schutz des wirtschaftlichen Wohlstands des Landes andererseits nicht angemessen gegeneinander abgewogen hatten. In einem letzten Fall hingegen verneinte der Gerichtshof eine Ermessensüberschreitung seitens der Behörden, als diese bei der Abwägung der sich gegenüberstehenden Interessen und bei ihrem Entscheid, das Gesuch der Betroffenen auf Familiennachzug abzulehnen, dem Umstand Rechnung trugen, dass die Beschwerdeführerin, die zumindest in der Lage war, Teilzeit zu arbeiten, keine Initiative zur Verbesserung ihrer finanziellen Situation gezeigt hatte. Verletzung von Art. 8 EMRK durch die Ablehnung der Gesuche auf Familiennachzug von drei der Beschwerdeführer und Nicht-Verletzung von Art. 8 EMRK durch die Ablehnung des Gesuchs auf Familiennachzug der vierten beschwerdeführenden Person; Nicht-Verletzung von Art. 8 EMRK aufgrund der Dauer des Verfahrens. Rüge der Verletzung von Art. 14 in Verbindung mit Art. 8 EMRK nicht gesondert geprüft (einstimmig).

   

   

  

Sachverhalt

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF B.F. AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

    (Applications nos.
    13258/18
    and 3 others)
   

 

JUDGMENT

 

    Art 8 - Positive obligations - Family life - Refusal of family reunification requests, for not fulfilling financial independence condition, of provisionally admitted refugees fearing persecution because of their illegal exit from their countries of origin - Member States having a certain margin of appreciation in requiring non-reliance on social assistance before granting family reunification to such refugees - Margin considerably narrower than that for introducing waiting periods for family reunification requested by persons without refugee status, but rather subsidiary or temporary protection status - International and European consensus for not distinguishing between different 1951 Convention refugees as regards family reunification requirements and for refugees to benefit from a more favourable reunification procedure than other aliens, reduces margin of appreciation - Particularly vulnerable situation of refugees
    sur place
    to be adequately considered when applying a requirement to their family reunification request - Insurmountable obstacles to enjoying family life in the country of origin progressively assuming greater importance in the fair-balance assessment as time passed - Need to apply requirement of non-reliance on social assistance with sufficient flexibility - Refugees not to be required to "do the impossible" to be granted family reunification - Fair balance between competing interests struck in one application but not in three
   

Art 8 - No breach on account of the duration of the family reunification proceedings in one application

 

STRASBOURG

 

4 July 2023

 

    This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
   

In the case of B.F. and Others v. Switzerland,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

        Pere Pastor Vilanova
    , President
    ,
   

    Jolien Schukking,

    Georgios A. Serghides,

    Darian Pavli,

    Peeter Roosma,

    Ioannis Ktistakis,

        Andreas Zünd
    , judges
    ,
   

    and Milan Blaško,
    Section Registrar,
   

Having regard to:

    the applications (nos.
    13258/18
    ,
    15500/18
    ,
    57303/18
    and 9078/20) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by four Eritrean nationals and one Chinese national, listed in the appended table ("the applicants"), on the dates indicated in that table;
   

the decision to give notice to the Swiss Government ("the Government") of the applications;

the parties' observations;

the comments submitted by the Governments of Germany and of Norway as well as by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section, and the comments in reply by the respondent Government and by the applicants;

the decision not to have the applicants' names disclosed;

Having deliberated in private on 13 June 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1.  The applications concern the refusal of requests for family reunification. The applicants residing in Switzerland were all recognised as refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ("the 1951 Convention") and granted provisional admission rather than asylum, in line with the relevant Swiss legislation, since the grounds for their having refugee status were deemed to have arisen following their departure from their countries of origin and as a result of their own actions. Under domestic law, they therefore did not have a legal entitlement to family reunification in Switzerland, but family reunification was discretionary and subject to certain cumulative conditions being met. Their applications for family reunification were rejected, firstly, because one of these cumulative criteria, namely non-reliance on social assistance, was not satisfied, and, secondly, because the refusals were deemed not to breach Article 8 of the Convention. All applicants invoked Article 8 of the Convention; some of the applicants also invoked Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.

1. THE FACTS

2.  The applicants' names, their years of birth, the dates on which they lodged their applications with the Court and the names of their representatives are set out in the appended table.

3.  The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Chablais, of the Federal Office of Justice, and by their Deputy Agent, Mr A. Scheidegger, of that same office.

4.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

    1. BACKGROUND TO AND KEY ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICATIONS
   

5.  Refugees who are granted asylum are entitled to bring their nuclear family members who hold the same nationality to Switzerland under section 51 of the Asylum Act, without a waiting period or other conditions. Prior to 1 January 2007, provisionally admitted refugees could rely on section 51 of the Asylum Act. Following legislative amendments, family reunification for provisionally admitted persons, including refugees, was made discretionary and subject to certain cumulative requirements, which were firstly set out in section 14c(3 bis) of the former Aliens Act of 1931 (from 1 January 2007 until that Act was repealed) and which since 1 January 2008 have been set out in section 85(7) of the current Aliens Act, which entered into force on that day. These requirements include a three-year waiting period and non-reliance on social assistance (see paragraphs  REF paragraph00045 \h 45 and  REF paragraph00051 \h 51 below).

    6.  The applicants in applications nos.
    13258/18
    ,
    57303/18
    and
    9078/20
    are Eritrean nationals, and the applicant in application 15500/18 is of Tibetan origin. After entering Switzerland at different points in time between 2008 and 2012, the first applicant in application no. 13258/18 and the applicants in applications nos. 15500/18,
    57303/18
    and
    9078/20
    applied for asylum. In all cases, the (then) Federal Migration Office found that the applicants qualified for refugee status within the meaning of the 1951 Convention on account of the ill-treatment they were at risk of experiencing in their countries of origin in the event of their return. However, as their claims of the persecution which they had allegedly faced in their countries of origin prior to their departure were not deemed to be credible and the risk of ill-treatment upon their return stemmed from their illegal exit from those countries, the grounds for their having refugee status had arisen following their departure from their countries of origin and as a result of their own actions ("subjective post-flight grounds"). Therefore, in accordance with section 54 of the Asylum Act, they were not granted asylum under section 49 of the Asylum Act (see paragraph  REF paragraph00044 \h 44 below), but provisional admission under section 83(3) of the Aliens Act (see paragraph  REF paragraph00045 \h 45 below). All the applicants were heard in person by the Federal Migration Office, but none of them was assisted by a lawyer before that authority. The decisions on the asylum applications also stated that family reunification for provisionally admitted refugees, in relation to spouses and children under the age of 18 years, was governed by and subject to the conditions set out in section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, and that requests had to be filed with the competent cantonal authorities.
   

    7.  The applicant in application no.
    13258/18
    lodged an appeal against the decision on her asylum application, with a view to being granted asylum. The Federal Administrative Court declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not paid court fees in the amount of 600 Swiss Francs (CHF) in advance. It did not examine the appeal in substance. The applicants in the other applications did not appeal against the decisions of the Federal Migration Office.
   

    8.  The applicants subsequently sought to bring members of their nuclear family to Switzerland for the purposes of family reunification. In applications nos.
    13258/18
    , 57303/18 and 9078/20, the family members whose admission to Switzerland was sought were children, all of whom were minors at the time the family reunification proceedings were initiated. In the domestic proceedings it was either established or presumed by the authorities (applications nos.
    13258/18
    and 9078/20), or submitted by the applicant and not contested by the authorities (application no. 57303/18), that the children's other parent was missing or dead. In application no.
    15500/18
    , the family members whose admission to Switzerland was sought were the applicant's long-standing wife and their two minor children.
   

9.  In the proceedings leading to the present applications, the Federal Administrative Court found that the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance (section 85(7) lit. c of the Aliens Act) was not met.

    The applicants in applications no.
    13258/18
    and
    9078/20
    were fully reliant on social assistance. It was established in the domestic proceedings that both of them suffered from health problems and that they were expected to remain reliant on social assistance. The applicant in application no.
    13258/18
    was found by the competent Swiss authorities to be 100% unfit to work after the conclusion of the domestic proceedings. During the domestic proceedings, the applicant in application no.
    9078/20
    was deemed to be able to work at least part-time.
   

    The applicants in applications nos.
    15500/18
    and
    57303/18
    were gainfully employed in Switzerland. However, the domestic authorities established that it was not expected that they could become financially independent in the foreseeable future if their family members joined them in Switzerland. The applicant in application no.
    15500/18
    worked full-time as a nursing staff member in a care home. The applicant in application no.
    57303/18
    was working part-time, on a 50% basis, and was caring for her three minor children alone.
   

    10.  In all cases, the Federal Administrative Court found that the applicants, as refugees whose provisional admission to the country was not likely to be revoked in the near future, had
    de facto
    settled status in Switzerland and could rely on Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph  REF paragraph00053 \h 53 below), but concluded that the refusal of the requests for family reunification did not breach that provision. In all cases, the Federal Administrative Court, in its assessment under Article 8 of the Convention, considered that the applicants' claims that they had had to leave their countries of origin owing to persecution had been rejected as not credible in the asylum proceedings (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above).
   

As the facts of the cases, the applicants' submissions and the court's reasoning varied to a certain extent, the respective domestic proceedings are summarised individually below.

    11.  In applications nos.
    13258/18
    and
    9078/20
    , the applicants submitted requests for humanitarian visas for their children abroad (see paragraph  REF paragraph00048 \h 48 below).
   

    In application no.
    13258/18
    , the request was rejected by the Swiss embassy in Khartoum as well as, subsequently, the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, in a judgment of 17 January 2017.
   

    In application no.
    9078/20
    , the applicant's representative submitted the request in writing to the Swiss embassy in Addis Ababa; no response to the request was given by the embassy, it being noted that, as a rule, requests for humanitarian visas had to be made in person.
   

The proceedings concerning humanitarian visas are not at issue in either of the applications.

    2. THE PROCEEDINGS AT ISSUE
   

    1. Application no. 13258/18
   

12.  In June 2012 the first applicant, B.F., left Eritrea, where she had been living with her daughter D.E., the second applicant, who was born in 2001. B.F. arrived in Switzerland in July 2012, applied for asylum and was provisionally admitted as a refugee by a decision of the Federal Migration Office of 10 October 2014 (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above).

13.  On 9 September 2016 B.F. lodged a request for family reunification with the State Secretariat for Migration in respect of her daughter D.E., the second applicant, relying on section 51(1) and (4) of the Asylum Act (see paragraph  REF paragraph00044 \h 44 below). By a letter of 11 October 2016 the State Secretariat for Migration informed her that the legal basis for family reunification with her daughter was provided for in section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, as she was a provisionally admitted refugee.

14.  On 9 September 2016 B.F. also lodged a request for family reunification in respect of D.E. with the competent authority of the Canton of Fribourg, relying on section 85(7) of the Aliens Act. She submitted that D.E.'s living conditions in Sudan were precarious and that she and D.E. could not wait for the completion of the three-year waiting period.

15.  By a decision of 22 December 2016 the State Secretariat for Migration, having received the opinion of the Canton of Fribourg, rejected the request, finding that the three-year waiting period had not been completed and that the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance was not met.

16.  On 26 January 2017 B.F., acting in her own name and on behalf of D.E., lodged an appeal against that decision. She argued that section 85(7) of the Aliens Act had to be interpreted in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention and the best interests of the child. In her case, refusing the family reunification which had been requested on the basis of a failure to satisfy the requirements of section 85(7) of the Aliens Act was equivalent to a permanent obstacle to B.F. and D.E. being able to enjoy their family life; this was not justified under Article 8 of the Convention. As B.F. was illiterate, had difficulty learning French and suffered from various health problems, it was likely that she would never be able to meet the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance. Her doctors considered her completely unfit to work; a request for her to be recognised as unfit to work had not yet been filed with the relevant insurance fund, as she had not yet met the requirement of residence in Switzerland for five years in order to potentially have the benefit of that insurance. B.F. further submitted that she had left her daughter with her maternal grandparents when she had left Eritrea. These grandparents had since become unable to care for D.E. and the latter had decided to leave Eritrea for Sudan on her own, where she lived in precarious conditions. It was evident that it was in the best interests of D.E., who had never met her father, a man about whom B.F. had had no news since he had been detained in Eritrea in 2001, to be reunited with her mother in Switzerland. As an unaccompanied girl in Sudan, where her stay was illegal, she was particularly vulnerable and exposed to risks like abduction, sexual abuse, rape and organ trafficking, and would be similarly vulnerable and exposed in the event of her potential onwards journey to Europe, which she had threatened to undertake in an attempt to be reunited with her mother. It was not in her best interests to stay without a parent in Sudan, where she was unable to attend school and from where she risked being expelled. The applicants referred to a report by UNHCR, whose staff in Khartoum had interviewed D.E. in person. Her current living conditions in Khartoum were precarious. Both B.F. and D.E. were severely distressed. The matter was urgent; mother and daughter had been separated since 2012.

Lastly, B.F. claimed that she was being discriminated against in comparison with refugees who were granted asylum and were in a more favourable position to bring their nuclear family members to Switzerland, without there being valid reasons for such a difference in treatment. On average, provisionally admitted refugees did not stay in Switzerland for a shorter period than refugees who were granted asylum. She alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.

In March 2017 B.F. travelled to Sudan for three weeks in an attempt to find a temporary solution for D.E., who was in a state of continued stress and distress, as certified by a neuropsychiatrist in Khartoum.

17.  By a judgment of 18 September 2017 the Federal Administrative Court rejected the appeal. It rejected the claim that B.F. was being discriminated against as a provisionally admitted refugee compared with refugees who were granted asylum. The latter were able to bring the members of their nuclear family to Switzerland from the moment they were granted asylum. Referring to its earlier case-law, the court considered that section 51 of the Asylum Act was meant to regulate, in a uniform manner, the status of the nuclear family unit as it had existed at the time of fleeing the country of origin, provided that the other family members had the same nationality as the refugee who had been granted asylum. Spouses and minor children were equally to be recognised as refugees and granted asylum (section 51(1)), and their entry into the country for the purposes of family reunification had to be authorised if they had been separated while fleeing and were thus abroad (section 51(4)). Section 51 of the Asylum Act was a special provision that allowed persons who met the relevant requirements to be accorded a more favourable status than those whose residence permit was based on requirements of the Aliens Act. Consequently, section 51 of the Aliens Act, and in particular its subsections 1 and 4, were not to be interpreted in an extensive manner and exclusively applied to the family members of refugees who were granted asylum in Switzerland. It therefore did not apply to any other category of foreign nationals, including provisionally admitted refugees, whose requests for family reunification were made under section 85(7) of the Aliens Act. The legislature had deliberately distinguished between refugees who were granted asylum and refugees who were provisionally admitted to the country.

18.  In accordance with section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, the minor children of a provisionally admitted refugee could have the benefit of family reunification three years after the order for provisional admission at the earliest, and on the condition that the additional requirements of that provision were met. The three-year waiting period had not been completed when B.F., who had been provisionally admitted by the decision of 10 October 2014, had applied for family reunification on 9 September 2016, or at the time of the Federal Administrative Court's judgment (18 September 2017). Therefore, it was, strictly speaking, not necessary to examine whether the substantive requirements of section 85(7) of the Aliens Act were met. Given that the completion of the waiting period was imminent, the Federal Administrative Court nevertheless went on to examine whether those substantive requirements were met and concluded that they were not. It noted that B.F. had not disputed that she was fully reliant on social assistance, and thus did not meet the requirements of section 85(7) lit. c of the Aliens Act. She had instead relied on Article 8 of the Convention and on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

19.  In its assessment under Article 8 of the Convention, the court considered that B.F.'s departure from Eritrea had been voluntary (see paragraphs  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 and  REF paragraph00007 \h 7 above) and that she inevitably had to expect a lengthy separation from D.E., whom she had left behind, and could not count on family reunification being granted without any conditions; the respective conditions (see paragraph  REF paragraph00054 \h 54 below) were not met in the present case. While B.F. had lived in Switzerland for more than five years, she was socially and professionally not well integrated. She had difficulty learning French because she was, according to her own submissions, ill and illiterate. Since having been provisionally admitted to the country she had at no point been able to engage in gainful employment owing to her psychological problems, and was fully assisted by Caritas. In view of her state of health, there was a serious risk that her reliance on social assistance would continue in the long run. D.E. had initially been taken care of by her maternal grandparents in Eritrea. Doubts remained as to whether a genuine state of necessity had forced D.E. to leave Eritrea. Moreover, she had the opportunity to lodge an asylum application with UNHCR and the Commission for Refugees in Sudan. There was a UNHCR programme in Khartoum to assist unaccompanied minors, supporting their placement in foster families. D.E. had furthermore reached an age where she was increasingly independent and did not have the same needs as a younger child. Lastly, B.F. could visit D.E. in Sudan, which she had already done in March 2017. The serious risk of continued and long-term reliance on social assistance, without there being any concrete hope of that reliance decreasing, constituted an important public interest which justified refusing the family reunification requested in the present case. The applicants' understandable interest in being reunited did not outweigh the above-mentioned public interest and would not do so, at least not until B.F.'s financial situation improved, especially since it was possible for B.F. to be in contact with D.E. and visit her.

20.  On 23 October 2017 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, which that court declared inadmissible on 27 October 2017, finding that decisions concerning provisional admission were not amenable to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court (section 83 lit. c no. 3 of the Federal Supreme Court Act, see paragraph  REF paragraph00049 \h 49 below).

    21.  After the present application was lodged, on 31 January 2019 the competent Swiss authorities recognised B.F.'s unfitness (
    invalidité
    ) for work, confirming that she was 100% unfit to work.
   

    2. Application no. 15500/18
   

22.  The applicant, a Chinese national of Tibetan ethnicity who entered Switzerland in November 2010, was provisionally admitted as a refugee by a decision of the (then) Federal Migration Office of 22 December 2010 (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above).

23.  On 9 October 2014 the applicant lodged a request for family reunification in respect of his long-standing wife and their two children, born in 2003 and 2007. The applicant submitted that he worked full-time, but that his income was not sufficient to cover the expenses of a family of four. However, he was sure that his wife would be able to work shortly after her arrival and that the family would become financially independent. He submitted the request to the Federal Migration Office, which forwarded it to the competent authority of the Canton of Uri.

24.  By a decision of 18 December 2015 the State Secretariat for Migration, having received the opinion of the Canton of Uri, rejected the request, finding that the requirements under section 85(7) of the Aliens Act were not met, notably the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance. Moreover, the family could, in principle, live together in India, where the applicant's wife and their children had lived since early 2014.

25.  On 20 January 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. He submitted that the Swiss Red Cross was keeping an apartment available for him to use when his wife and children arrived and would rent it to him for CHF 1,200 a month, and that Mr B. would be a guarantor for the family's rent. The authorities' calculation concerning the family's reliance on social assistance was erroneous: in his submission, the total amount of the family's monthly expenses would be CHF 4,033.20, not CHF 4,777, and the family's income would amount to CHF 3,721, not CHF 3,577. The family's calculated income would thus fall short of the calculated expenses by only CHF 312.20 a month. The family was willing to live modestly and forgo social assistance, if only they were able to finally live together again. The applicant's wife was willing and able to work part-time as soon as possible. Hence, no reliance on social assistance was to be expected in the future. The standard to be applied to this assessment must not be too strict, given that the particular situation of provisionally admitted refugees had to be taken into account in the decision concerning the authorisation of family reunification, in accordance with section 74(5) of the Regulation on Admission, Residence and Employment ("the Regulation", see paragraph  REF paragraph00047 \h 47 below). The applicant submitted that he had made great efforts to integrate; he had taken several intensive German language courses, followed professional integration programmes and completed professional training as a nursing staff member. Since mid-2014 he had worked full-time as a nursing staff member in a care home. It was unacceptable to hold the fact that work in the care sector was poorly paid in Switzerland against him and his family, and to deny the family reunification which had been requested on the sole ground that the applicant belonged to the working poor. He had done all that he could and it was discriminatory to deny the family reunification on the basis of his low salary.

26.  The applicant added that denying the requested family reunification also breached Article 8 of the Convention. In view of the situation in Tibet, his provisional admission to Switzerland was not likely to be revoked. The reasons why he had not been granted asylum had nothing to do with the degree of risk he faced in the country of origin or the likelihood of his return. In terms of settled status, his situation was comparable to those of refugees who were granted asylum. He had not separated from his wife and children voluntarily; he had been forced to flee. They were in contact very regularly and he transferred between CHF 800 and CHF 1,000 to them every month. The family could not, and could not reasonably be expected to, live together in India. Referring to a country report on the situation of Tibetan refugees in India, he submitted that India had not ratified the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol thereto, and Tibetan refugees had no lawful residence in India. The stay of his wife and children there was illegal. Even if the Indian authorities tolerated their stay, their rights were severely restricted, for example as regards access to the labour market, to higher education and the right to own land. Having been recognised as a refugee in Switzerland, the applicant would not receive a residence permit in India. Their family life was only possible in Switzerland. It was in the children's best interests to live with both parents and to have access to education and to healthcare, which they currently did not have. His wife was ill and dependent on his support. Provisionally admitted refugees were to be accorded more favourable treatment than other foreigners, including other provisionally admitted persons.

27.  In subsequent submissions, the applicant's representative repeatedly asked the court to adjudicate the case speedily. On one occasion the competent judge indicated that the adjudication of the applicant's appeal had been delayed because another judicial formation was preparing a leading judgment in a similar case.

28.  By a judgment of 2 October 2017 the Federal Administrative Court rejected the appeal. It concurred with the State Secretariat for Migration that the requirements of section 85(7) of the Aliens Act were not met, notably the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance. The applicant's allegation that the authorities' calculation as to the family's reliance on social assistance in the event of family reunification was incorrect, as were the applicant's own calculations. For example, his calculations did not entail any expenses for furniture and certain types of insurance (household, personal liability), and the health insurance for him, his wife and their children provided for an excess that would have to be borne by the family, which was likely to result in expenses, as the applicant suffered from depression and his wife had epilepsy. The amount by which the family would fall short of non-reliance on social assistance was therefore significantly higher than he claimed, even though it could not be calculated precisely in advance. The guarantee submitted by the applicant was void and he could not rely on it for relief. Consequently, the gap between insufficient income and expenses could not be expected to close in the foreseeable future, especially as the epilepsy of the applicant's wife limited her employment opportunities. Her desire and ability to work, as well as the hope that she would later be employed by the same employer as the applicant, could not be factored into the calculation of the family's income; a legally valid employment contract would be required to that end.

29.  In so far as the applicant had submitted that the strict application of section 85(7) lit. c. of the Aliens Act in his case breached Article 8 of the Convention, the Federal Administrative Court considered that the applicant's claim that he had had to flee the Tibet Autonomous Region had been rejected in the asylum proceedings (see paragraphs  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 and  REF paragraph00010 \h 10 above). The applicant's level of integration into professional life was not above average, having regard to the duration of his stay. He had not claimed any deeper social ties to Switzerland and his wife had no links to the country at all, save to the applicant. Moreover, the wife's submission that she had only been living in India since 1 January 2014 was neither substantiated nor plausible. Fleeing from Tibet over the high mountain passes was very dangerous, even in summer, and a refugee's subsequent presence in Nepal was risky. Tibetan refugees only found a certain safety once they reached India. A document issued by the Tibet Office in Dharamsala stating that she had been in India since 1 January 2014 was without evidential value. In view of her submission and those of the applicant in the asylum proceedings - that he had never been to school and spoke not a word of Chinese, which indicated that he did not originate from the Tibet Autonomous Region - the Federal Administrative Court concluded that it was likely that the family, including the applicant, had stayed in India for a significantly longer period than they claimed. In any event, and regardless of whether he had stayed in India before, the applicant could live his family life in India. Tibetans were not threatened with removal from India, and there was effective protection against such removal. This was illustrated by the stay of his wife and children there. Considering that the family reunification which had been requested was expected to result in further costs to be borne by the authorities and to lead to a risk of significant reliance on social assistance, the important public interest in refusing the family reunification outweighed the private interests.

    3. Application no. 57303/18
   

30.  According to her submissions, the applicant left Eritrea in 2006 then stayed in Sudan until she left in May 2007 for Libya, where she stayed until November 2008, when she crossed the Mediterranean Sea. She subsequently entered Switzerland, together with her then partner and their two children, born in 2006 and 2007. A third child was born to the couple in 2009. The applicant was provisionally admitted as a refugee by a decision of the (then) Federal Migration Office of 10 February 2010 (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above). The father of the three above-mentioned children returned to Eritrea in 2013; the applicant submitted that he had later disappeared entirely.

31.  In March 2010 the applicant lodged a request for family reunification in respect of her eldest daughter X, who was born in November 2000 from a previous relationship. The applicant initially lodged the request with the Federal Migration Office, which forwarded it to the competent authority of the Canton of Vaud. By a decision of 17 March 2011 the Federal Migration Office, having received the opinion of the Canton of Vaud, refused the request. By a judgment of 18 December 2012 the Federal Administrative Court rejected an appeal against that decision.

32.  On 3 December 2014 the applicant lodged a fresh request for family reunification in respect of X with the Federal Migration Office. By a letter of 18 December 2015 the State Secretariat for Migration, referring to the previous family reunification proceedings, noted that the request had to be lodged with the competent cantonal authorities, which was why the applicant had not received a response thus far. It informed the applicant that it had forwarded the request to the competent authority of the Canton of Vaud. On 8 September 2016 the applicant's legal representative lodged a family reunification request in respect of X with the competent authority of the Canton of Vaud. In their observations, the Government referred to that action by the applicant's representative as a reiteration of the request for family reunification, and referred to the proceedings initiated by the request of 3 December 2014 as the second set of family reunification proceedings. On multiple occasions the Canton of Vaud requested additional documents from the applicant, such as the birth certificate of X; the applicant submitted the last document requested on 7 May 2017. The Canton of Vaud sent its opinion on the family reunification request in July 2017, and by a decision of 5 December 2017 the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the request. It considered that the time-limit under section 74(3) of the Regulation (see paragraph  REF paragraph00047 \h 47 below) for filing a family reunification request concerning a child over the age of 12 had not been respected, and that the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of financial independence. The authority concluded that the refusal did not breach Article 8 of the Convention.

    33.  On 3 January 2018 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, acting in her own name and on behalf of her daughter. The applicant alleged that the refusal to grant the family reunification which had been requested breached Article 8 of the Convention and was contrary to X's best interests. X had been eight years old at the time the applicant had lodged her first request for family reunification in 2010 (see paragraph  REF paragraph00031 \h 31 above); she was 16 years old now. It was impossible for the applicant, who was raising three young children alone, to satisfy the requirement of financial independence under section 85(7) lit. c of the Aliens Act, even though she was working. The applicant maintained that she had had to leave X behind in Eritrea at the time because fleeing the country would have been too dangerous for a small child. X was dependent on the applicant, who was her sole living parent, as her father had died. X lived in precarious conditions as a displaced person in Khartoum; she had not been schooled, was in poor health, and as a young girl without family support, she was exposed to various risks of abuse. Both mother and daughter were suffering enormously from being separated and it was not possible for them to live together somewhere other than Switzerland. As it was unlikely that the applicant would find a job that was sufficiently well paid to achieve non-reliance on social assistance, refusing the family reunification which had been requested on the ground of a lack of non-reliance on social assistance entailed a
    de facto
    permanent separation of mother and daughter.
   

34.  By a judgment of 26 July 2018 the Federal Administrative Court rejected the appeal. Noting that X had been born in November 2000, it concurred with the State Secretariat for Migration that the time-limit of section 74(3) of the Regulation had not been respected: it had expired on 10 February 2014, one year after the three-year waiting period under section 85(7) of the Aliens Act had been completed on 10 February 2013. The family reunification which had been requested could therefore, in accordance with section 74(4) of the Regulation, only be granted for good cause. However, the question of whether that condition was met could be left open, as in any event the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance (section 85(7) lit c. of the Aliens Act) was not satisfied. The applicant, who had had the benefit of social assistance ever since she had arrived in Switzerland, had certainly taken steps likely to facilitate her professional integration. Notably, she had been taking French language courses since 2011 and had completed a six-month period of professional training in the cleaning sector in 2016; since January 2016 she had been doing two hours of housekeeping work per week, and since September 2017 she had been working part-time (on a 50% basis) in a hospital. Between September and December 2017 her monthly net income had amounted to CHF 1,714, CHF 1,759, CHF 1,770 and CHF 2,823 respectively, which had contributed to reducing the amount of social assistance allocated to the family. In December 2017 the monthly social assistance she had received had amounted to CHF 1,196.55, in addition to the rent for her apartment (CHF 1,810) being covered by social services. Notwithstanding her part-time employment, the applicant remained largely reliant on social assistance, and she had not shown that it was likely that she would be able to achieve financial independence in the near future.

35.  In its assessment under Article 8 of the Convention, the Federal Administrative Court considered that the applicant's claim that she had had to leave Eritrea owing to problems with the authorities had been rejected as not credible in the asylum proceedings (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above). Her decision to leave Eritrea inevitably meant that she had to expect a lengthy separation from X, whom she had left with her own mother, and could not count on family reunification being granted without any conditions; the respective conditions (see paragraph  REF paragraph00054 \h 54 below) were not met in the present case. The applicant had not found part-time employment until September 2017, which paid her a monthly salary of CHF 2,000 gross. She remained largely reliant on social assistance and did not appear to be in a position to become financially independent in the near future, especially when taking into account that she no longer had the help of her partner, who had returned to Eritrea, and that she had to care for three minor children in Switzerland. It appeared from the file that X had left Eritrea with her grandmother and had lived with her in Khartoum until shortly before the court's judgment. Having regard to the applicant's submission that her daughter now lived there alone and that her living conditions as an unaccompanied girl were precarious, the Federal Administrative Court emphasised that she could lodge an asylum application with UNHCR and the Commission for Refugees in Sudan. There was a UNHCR programme in Khartoum to assist unaccompanied minors, supporting their placement in foster families. X had furthermore reached an age where she was increasingly independent and did not have the same needs as a younger child had. Lastly, the applicant could visit X in Sudan, which she had already done for a month in 2014. The serious risk of continued and long-term reliance on social assistance, without there being any concrete hope of that reliance decreasing, constituted an important public interest which justified refusing the family reunification which had been requested in the present case, especially as X's current situation had resulted from a personal choice and there were no indications that she was in an extremely critical situation. The interests of the applicant and her daughter in being reunited were certainly understandable, but did not outweigh the public interest and would not do so, at least not until the applicant's financial situation improved, especially since contact with her daughter in Sudan was possible.

    4. Application no. 9078/20
   

36.  The applicant left Eritrea in January 2012 and applied for asylum in Switzerland in March 2012. She was provisionally admitted as a refugee by a decision of the (then) Federal Migration Office of 3 February 2014 (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above).

37.  On 10 July 2014 the applicant lodged a request for family reunification in respect of her daughters, who were born in 1999 and 2007, with the Federal Migration Office, which forwarded the request to the competent authority of the Canton of Vaud on 14 July 2014. The authority subsequently requested additional information from the applicant, who submitted the last documents requested on 22 July 2017. By a decision of 3 November 2017 the State Secretariat for Migration, having received the opinion of the Canton of Vaud, rejected the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 85(7) lit. b and c of the Aliens Act.

    38.  On 28 November 2017, acting in her own name and on behalf of her two daughters, the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, arguing that it was disproportionate and breached Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant maintained that she had been forced to leave Eritrea and that she had had to leave her then young daughters behind with her own parents because fleeing the country would have been dangerous for them; the separation had not been voluntary. She had made efforts to learn French and had undergone professional training as a cleaning lady, but had been unable to find a job. She also had serious health problems. As it was unlikely that she would find a job that was sufficiently well paid to achieve financial independence, refusing the family reunification which had been requested on the ground of a lack of financial independence entailed a
    de facto
    permanent separation. If the family reunification were granted, it was likely that the family's financial situation would evolve favourably in the future, as the girls had good potential. Both mother and daughters were suffering enormously from the separation. It was not possible for them to live together somewhere other than Switzerland. The girls had been living in precarious conditions in the Adi-Harush refugee camp in Ethiopia since September 2015, when they had arrived there with their aunt. Security and sanitary conditions in the camp were poor and they had limited access to water, food, medical care and schooling. The applicant referred to reports from UNHCR which, on the basis of in-person interviews with the girls, had concluded that their reunification with the applicant was in their best interests. The girls were very vulnerable, as they were separated from both of their parents - their father was presumably dead - and at risk of various forms of abuse and exploitation, abduction, early or forced marriage and human trafficking. In Ethiopia, they had no right to live outside a refugee camp, no right to work and no prospect of integration.
   

In April 2018 the applicant travelled to Ethiopia and subsequently informed the Federal Administrative Court in detail about the conditions in which she had seen her daughters living; these were extremely problematic and even worse than she had previously known. The health of her younger daughter, in particular, was deteriorating.

39.  The applicant repeatedly asked the Federal Administrative Court to adjudicate the case speedily and argued that the duration of the proceedings was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The Federal Administrative Court, in turn, repeatedly requested supplementary information from the applicant, including as regards her state of health, in particular, information about whether she was completely or partially unfit to work, her professional situation, and the state of health and level of education of her elder daughter. The applicant's last submission in response to these requests for supplementary information was made on 11 July 2019.

40.  By a judgment of 9 September 2019 the Federal Administrative Court rejected the applicant's appeal. It found that the applicant met the requirement of section 85(7) lit. b of the Aliens Act, but concurred with the assessment of the State Secretariat for Migration that the requirement of financial non-reliance of section 85(7) lit. c. of the Aliens Act was not met. The applicant had been reliant on social assistance ever since she had been provisionally admitted to Switzerland. She had made certain efforts, notably by taking a French language course and completing six months of training as a cleaner in 2016, but she had never found work in Switzerland. She had initially searched for employment in 2016, but had failed to submit evidence of having searched for a job since, despite repeated requests by the court to provide such information. While she suffered from several medical problems which could render her job search more difficult, she was not completely unfit to work. A medical report of July 2019 attested to the fact that she had serious medical pathologies and had to avoid tasks that involved carrying heavy items, as well as contact with dust and solvent fumes. The court took the view that the applicant could work in an appropriate part-time job and that she was required to have training and continue her job search in a diligent manner. To support its finding that the applicant was physically able to work at least part-time, the Federal Administrative Court also had regard to the fact that she had been able to undertake a long journey in difficult conditions to visit her daughters in Ethiopia in April 2018. In so far as the applicant had submitted that her prospects of integrating professionally were very poor owing to a lack of training, the court noted that she had not made supplementary efforts to change that situation during the seven years of her stay in Switzerland. Allowing the family reunification which had been requested would entail a considerable risk that the family would continue to rely significantly on social assistance: no information on the education of the applicant's elder daughter, who was now 20 years old, had been provided, despite the court's requests for this, and it therefore could not be established that there was a certain likelihood that she could contribute in order to render the family financially independent; the younger daughter, who was 12 years old, was too young to be taken into account as a contributor.

41.  In its assessment under Article 8 of the Convention, the Federal Administrative Court considered that the applicant's claim that she had had to leave Eritrea owing to problems with the authorities had been rejected as not credible in the asylum proceedings (see paragraph  REF paragraph00006 \h 6 above). Her decision to leave Eritrea, where she had lived with her daughters - whom she had left with her own parents, and who had arrived at the Adi-Harush refugee camp in Ethiopia in September 2015, accompanied by their aunt and a cousin - inevitably meant that she had to expect a lengthy separation from them and could not count on family reunification being granted without any conditions; the respective conditions (see paragraph  REF paragraph00054 \h 54 below) were not met in the present case. In view of the serious risk of the family's continued reliance on social assistance, without any concrete hope of that reliance diminishing, there was a significant public interest in refusing the family reunification which had been requested, especially as the applicant's current situation had resulted from her own choice; there was no indication that she was in an extremely critical situation. The applicant's private interests in being reunited with her children, and in particular her minor daughter, were certainly understandable, but did not outweigh the public interest and would not do so, at least not until her financial situation improved, especially since contact with the children in Ethiopia was possible.

42.  On 11 October 2019 the Federal Supreme Court declared the applicant's appeal against the Federal Administrative Court's judgment inadmissible.

    43.  After lodging her application with the Court, the applicant, by a letter of 30 September 2021, asked the State Secretariat for Migration to reconsider the refusal of the family reunification which had been requested. She submitted,
    inter alia
    , that her daughters were alone in Ethiopia following the departure of their aunt and cousin. By a letter of 2 November 2021 the State Secretariat for Migration informed the applicant that her request was not clear and that it would not process it in the absence of further submissions on her part. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she would not make further submissions to the State Secretariat for Migration, as she considered these futile.
   

2. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

    1. THE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
   

    1. The relevant legislation
   

44.  The relevant provisions of the Asylum Act provide as follows:

    Section 3 [Definition of the term refugee]
   

"1.  Refugees are persons who, in their native country or in their last country of residence, are subject to serious disadvantages or have a well-founded fear of being exposed to such disadvantages for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or owing to their political opinions.

...

3.  Persons who are subject to serious disadvantages or have a well-founded fear of being exposed to such disadvantages because they have refused to perform military service or have deserted are not refugees. The provisions of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees are reserved.

4.  Persons who claim grounds on the basis of their conduct following their departure that are neither an expression nor a continuation of a conviction already held in their native country or country of origin are not refugees. The provisions of the Refugee Convention are reserved."

    Section 49 [Principle]
   

"Asylum is granted to persons if they have refugee status and there are no grounds for denying asylum."

    Section 51 [Family asylum]
   

"1.  Spouses or registered partners of refugees and their minor children shall be recognised as refugees and granted asylum provided there are no special circumstances that preclude this.

...

4.  If the entitled persons under subsection 1 were separated while fleeing and are now abroad, their entry must be authorised upon application."

    Section 54 [Subjective post-flight grounds]
   

"Refugees shall not be granted asylum if they became refugees in accordance with section 3 only by leaving their native country or country of origin, or owing to their conduct after their departure."

    Section 58 [Principle]
   

"The legal status of refugees in Switzerland is governed by the law applicable to foreign nationals, unless special provisions, in particular [those] of this Act and of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, apply."

    Section 59 [Effect]
   

"Persons to whom Switzerland has granted asylum or who fulfil the requirements for refugee status are deemed, in their relations with all federal and cantonal authorities, to be refugees within the meaning of this Act and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees."

45.  The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act provide as follows, it being noted that section 85(7) lit. d and e, as well as subsections 7 bis and 7 ter of the Aliens Act, entered into force on 1 January 2019, following the adoption of amendments on 16 December 2016 (by which the name of the Act was changed to "the Aliens and Integration Act"):

    Section 83 [Order for provisional admission]
   

"1.  If the enforcement of removal is not possible, not permitted or not reasonable, the State Secretariat for Migration shall order provisional admission.

...

3.  Enforcement is not permitted if Switzerland's obligations under international law prevent the foreign national from making an onward journey to their native country, to their country of origin or to a third country.

4.  Enforcement may be unreasonable for foreign nationals if they are specifically endangered by situations such as war, civil war, general violence [or a] medical emergency in their native country or country of origin.

...

8.  Refugees for whom there are reasons for refusing asylum in accordance with sections 53 and 54 Asylum Act shall be granted provisional admission.

..."

    Section 84 [Termination of provisional admission]
   

"1.  The State Secretariat for Migration periodically examines whether the requirements for provisional admission are still met.

2.  The State Secretariat for Migration shall revoke provisional admission and order the enforcement of removal if the requirements no longer met.

..."

    Section 85 [Regulation of provisional admission]
   

"1.  The permit for provisionally admitted persons (section 41(2)) is issued by the canton of residence for a maximum of twelve months for control purposes and is extended subject to the reservation of section 84.

...

7.  The spouses and unmarried children under 18 years of provisionally admitted persons and of provisionally admitted refugees may be reunited with the provisionally admitted persons or refugees three years after the order for provisional admission at the earliest, and may be included in that order if:

a. they live with the provisionally admitted persons or refugees;

b. suitable housing is available;

c. the family does not rely on social assistance;

d. they can communicate in the national language spoken at the place of residence; and

e. the family member they are joining is not claiming annual supplementary benefits under the [Supplementary Benefits Act] or would not be entitled to receive such benefits because of family reunification.

7 bis  In order to be granted provisional admission, it is sufficient to register for a language support programme as an alternative to meeting the requirement set out in subsection 7 point d.

7 ter  In the case of unmarried children under the age of 18, the requirement set out in subsection 7 point d does not apply. The requirement may also be waived for good cause, as set out in section 49a(2).

..."

    Section 96 [Exercise of discretion]
   

"1.  In exercising discretion, the competent authorities shall take account of public interests and personal circumstances, as well as the integration of foreign nationals.

..."

    46.  On 17 December 2021 amendments to the Aliens Act were enacted (BBl 2021 2999), which have not yet entered into force. The amendments,
    inter alia
    , will result in section 85(7) of the Aliens Act becoming a new section (section 85c) of the Aliens Act, without substantive changes to the provision's content.
   

47.  The procedure allowing the spouses and minor children of provisionally admitted persons to obtain the same status on the basis of section 85(7) of the Aliens Act is set out in section 74 of the Regulation on Admission, Residence and Employment ("the Regulation"), which provides:

    Section 74 [Family reunification for provisionally admitted persons (section 85(7) of the Aliens Act)]
   

"1.  Requests for the inclusion of family members in a provisional admission order have to be filed with the cantonal migration authority (section 88(1)).

2.  The cantonal migration authority transfers the request, together with its observations, to the State Secretariat for Migration. The observations state whether the legal requirements for family reunification are met.

3.  If the temporal requirements provided for by section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, relating to family reunification, are met, the request to have the family members included in the provisional admission order has to be lodged within five years. For children of more than 12 years of age, requests for family reunification have to be lodged within twelve months after the satisfaction of the temporal requirements. If a family relationship is created after the completion of the waiting period provided for by section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, the above-mentioned time-limits start to run from that later date.

4.  After the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limits, family reunification may only be granted for good cause relating to the family. If necessary, children over the age of 14 years will be heard in respect of family reunification. The hearing will, as a rule, take place at the Swiss representation at the place of residence.

5.  The particular situation of provisionally admitted refugees has to be taken into account in the decision concerning the authorisation of family reunification. ..."

48.  Section 4(2) of the Visa Regulation provides for the possibility for foreign nationals to be issued with a visa for a long-term stay on humanitarian grounds, with such grounds deemed to exist, in particular, if the relevant person's life or limb is directly, seriously and tangibly threatened in his or her country of origin. The issuance of such a visa is discretionary. As a rule, the person requesting a visa under section 4(2) has to present himself or herself in person at the relevant Swiss representation in order to submit the request (section 23(3)).

    49.  Section 83 lit. c no. 3 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (
    Bundesgerichtsgesetz
    ) provides that appeals to the Federal Supreme Court concerning provisional admission are inadmissible.
   

    2. Report of the Federal Council of 12 October 2016 and subsequent developments
   

50.  On 12 October 2016 the Swiss Federal Council adopted a report entitled "Provisional admission and protection needs: analysis and options for action". It stated that the majority of provisionally admitted persons remained in Switzerland in the long run and that only few family reunification requests by provisionally admitted persons were granted in view of the requirements under section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, with between thirty and fifty persons per year being admitted provisionally by way of family reunification. The report explored three different options relating to how the status of provisional admission could be adapted. In this regard, the Federal Council pursued two overarching objectives: to improve the framework for a more rapid integration of persons in respect of whom it was foreseeable that they would remain in Switzerland for a longer period, and, at the same time, to avoid increased immigration. The Federal Council took the view that the introduction of a new status for persons in need of protection, which would be geared towards subsidiary protection status at European Union level, would best address the situation. The National Council subsequently adopted a motion to task the Federal Council with the preparation of draft legislation to that effect. The Council of States later rejected the motion.

    3. Case-law of the domestic courts
   

51.  Prior to 1 January 2007 refugees who were provisionally admitted could rely on section 51 of the Asylum Act by analogy, which was more favourable to them than the provisions which have been in force since. Following legislative amendments, family reunification for provisionally admitted persons, including refugees, was rendered discretionary and made subject to certain cumulative requirements, which were firstly set out in section 14c(3 bis) of the former Aliens Act of 1931 (from 1 January 2007 until that Act was repealed) and which since 1 January 2008 have been set out in section 85(7) of the current Aliens Act, which entered into force on that day. That latter provision exclusively governs family reunification requests by provisionally admitted refugees in respect of their family members abroad (paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of Federal Administrative Court judgment no. F-2186/2015 of 6 December 2016, including with respect to the legislative history). The requirements under section 85(7) of the Aliens Act correspond to those concerning the family reunification of foreign nationals holding a residence permit in Switzerland (section 44 of the Aliens Act), with the exception of the three-year waiting period, which applies to the family reunification of persons granted provisional admission, including refugees, but not to foreign nationals holding a residence permit.

    52.  As a rule, the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance under section 85(7) lit. c of the Aliens Act is satisfied when the relevant individual's means reach a level where there is no entitlement to social assistance under the guidelines of the Swiss Conference for Social Welfare (paragraph 5.2 of Federal Administrative Court judgment no. F-2043/2015 of 26 July 2017, with further references). When assessing whether this requirement is satisfied, the specific circumstances of a person's refugee status have to be taken into account (ibid., with references to,
    inter alia
    , section 74(5) of the Regulation, cited at paragraph  REF paragraph00047 \h 47 above, and to the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of 5 September 2013 in case no. 2C_983/2012, BGE 139 I 330). Where family reunification entails a risk of continued and significant reliance on social assistance, such a risk could justify refusing a provisionally admitted refugee family reunification. The assessment is to be based on the current circumstances of the family member who is lawfully residing in Switzerland, as well as on likely financial developments, taking into account the financial potential of all family members in the long run. The forward-looking assessment as to future reliance on social assistance is thus a global one, and has to have regard to the specific situation of the refugee, including his efforts to integrate and to financially support his family with his own means, as well as regard to the situation that could be expected in the medium and long term. If a recognised refugee has done all that could reasonably be expected of him to earn a living which covers his and his family's expenses, and has at least partly integrated into the labour market, this must be sufficient to allow for family reunification. In such circumstances, that is, where a refugee, despite such efforts and through no fault of his own, is unable to meet the requirement of section 85(7) lit. c of the Aliens Act within the relevant time-limits for family reunification, the amount by which the family falls short of non-reliance on social assistance must not exceed a reasonable amount and should be made up for in the foreseeable future, in order for family reunification to be granted (paragraph 5.2 of the Federal Administrative Court judgment no. F-2043/2015 of 26 July 2017, cited above). In a case concerning a provisionally admitted person who was unable to work for medical reasons, and consequently unable to satisfy the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance, the Federal Administrative Court found that the strict application of the provision was discriminatory and ordered that the family reunification in that case be granted, noting that the applicant had done all he could to avoid or at least reduce the family's reliance on social assistance, and that the family reunification was also expected to improve his state of health (Federal Administrative Court judgment no. E-1339/2010 of 24 July 2013).
   

    53.  In the above-mentioned judgment of 26 July 2017, the Federal Administrative Court - which had until then considered that provisionally admitted persons could not, as a rule, rely on Article 8 of the Convention, given that provisional admission was not a residence permit but a suspension from deportation and did not constitute "settled status" (
    gefestigtes Aufenthaltsrecht
    /
    droit de présence assuré
    ) - changed its case-law in respect of Article 8 and the family reunification of provisionally admitted refugees. It considered that recognised refugees, whether they were provisionally admitted or granted asylum, were, as a rule, unable to return to their country of origin in the long run. It was therefore appropriate to consider that provisionally admitted refugees had
    de facto
    settled status (
    faktisches Aufenthaltsrecht/droit de séjourner de facto
    ) and that they could, as a rule, invoke Article 8 of the Convention in respect of requests for family reunification with their spouses and minor children, unless the revocation of their status was foreseeable (ibid., paragraphs 6.2-6.4).
   

    54.  According to the case-law of the domestic courts, in cases where an individual satisfies the criteria of the definition of refugee on the basis of grounds which have arisen following the departure from the country of origin and as a result of his or her own actions ("subjective post-flight grounds"), it does not
    per se
    breach Article 8 of the Convention that entry for the purposes of family reunification is made subject to certain conditions. In order for family reunification to be granted, the individual's integration has to be well underway, so that at least a reduction of the family's reliance on social assistance appears seriously foreseeable (ibid., paragraph 7.2).
   

    55.  In a judgment of 24 November 2022 (no. F-2739/2022) the Federal Administrative Court held that a change in practice was required in respect of the three-year waiting period under section 85(7) of the Aliens Act, in order to ensure compliance with the developments brought by the judgment of this Court in
    M.A. v. Denmark
    ([GC], no.
    6697/18
    , 9 July 2021). The Federal Administrative Court thus considered that until legislation was revised, the competent Swiss authorities would henceforth be required to carry out, at the request of applicants, an individual and detailed examination of their case once the effective waiting period approached two years, which meant six months before the end of the two-year waiting period at the earliest (judgment no. F-2739/2022, paragraph 6.4). In that individualised assessment, the Swiss authorities would have to take into account all the factors cited in
    M.A. v. Denmark
    , including, in particular, the level of integration in Switzerland, the existence of insurmountable obstacles to the pursuit of family life in the country of origin or in a third State and the best interests of the child, in order to determine whether the application of a period shorter than three years was necessary for considerations related to the protection of family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (ibid.). On the facts of the case, the Federal Administrative Court found that the State Secretariat for Migration had not carried out any individualised examination when it had applied the three-year waiting period which it had therefore treated as a bar to the grant of family reunification, given that provisional admission had been granted about one year and eight months before the State Secretariat for Migration had taken its decision on the request for family reunification (ibid., paragraph 6.6). The court quashed the decision and referred the matter back to the State Secretariat for Migration for a fresh assessment.
   

    2. OBSERVATIONS BY INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS AS REGARDS SWISS LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE CONCERNING FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR PROVISIONALLY ADMITTED PERSONS
   

    1. Observations by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
   

56.  The report of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, issued on 17 October 2017, CommDH(2017)26, following his visit to Switzerland from 22 to 24 May 2017, stated (unofficial translation by the Registry, footnotes omitted):

"101.  In addition, aliens may be granted provisional admission in the two cases where they are excluded from refugee status. They would then be granted 'provisional admission [the F permit] as a refugee', which is accompanied by additional rights in relation to those conferred upon individuals with ordinary provisional admission, particularly in terms of access to employment. In late July 2017, out of a total of 39,752 individuals with provisional admission, 9,691 of them held provisional admission as a refugee.

102.  Provisional admission may be granted for twelve months or more. The canton of residence may extend the duration, for twelve months at a time, if it still proves impossible to arrange for the person's return. However, it does not really amount to having a residence permit because those concerned are still in principle obliged to leave Switzerland. It is scarcely more than a confirmation that the person's removal is temporarily impossible. An alien who has been provisionally admitted and has lived in Switzerland for over five years may then apply for leave to remain.

103.  The Commissioner notes that, in practice, the vast majority (about 90%) of aliens granted provisional admission remain in the country in the long term and about one half of them have been in Switzerland for more than five years. Some such aliens have lived in Switzerland for periods of over 15 years on the basis of provisional admission.

104.  Provisional admission is sometimes compared to the subsidiary protection which is provided for by the EU regulatory framework. However, unlike types of refugee status or subsidiary protection, provisional admission carries significant legal restrictions especially in terms of geographical mobility (changing canton of residence or travelling abroad), family reunification and social assistance. Since 2006 migrants with provisional admission have had access to the labour market but solely at the discretion of the cantonal authorities. On that point there are major differences in practice between the cantons. However, recent figures show that migrants with provisional admission take much longer to find a job. Professional integration is hindered by a number of restrictive administrative provisions and employers' ignorance of the status. The difficulty of accessing the labour market impedes access to family reunification, which depends in particular on the migrant's financial situation. Access to training is also difficult. In addition, various types of hassle, such as being denied a mobile phone subscription on account of the 'provisional' nature of one's residence, may seriously complicate the daily life of those concerned.

105.  For all the reasons mentioned above, aliens granted provisional admission are thus placed permanently in a difficult and unstable situation which significantly hinders their professional and social integration, even though they are likely to remain in Switzerland in the long term and will ultimately obtain leave to remain, as has been seen in practice. Some prefer to refer to it as a 'non-status' and most agree that it will have to be reviewed.

106.  On this subject, the Commissioner has been informed of a number of procedures underway with a view to bringing about some improvement in the situation of provisionally admitted aliens. ...

...

109.  The Commissioner also recommends that the Swiss authorities rapidly put in place a status of international subsidiary protection guaranteeing the same rights as those conferred on individuals who have been granted official refugee status, especially in terms of leave to remain, family reunification, mobility, freedom to travel, social assistance and access to naturalisation, thus facilitating their integration. The Swiss authorities should adopt transitional measures to ensure that the new status can be granted to individuals who meet the conditions and are already present in Switzerland at the time it enters into force.

...

167.  Since 2007 spouses and single children (under 18) of provisionally admitted aliens (with the F permit), including those considered to be refugees (without official status), have been able to apply for family reunification and for the same residence permit, no earlier than three years after the grant of provisional admission, in the following conditions: they must live together in the same household; they must have appropriate accommodation; and the family must not be reliant on social assistance. The accommodation condition is construed strictly, i.e. each child must have a bedroom and the housing must already be secured at the time the application is made. Those reliant on social assistance are not eligible for family reunification. In practice, on account of these requirements, very few requests for family reunification are granted by the SEM [State Secretariat for Migration]. According to the authorities, currently only 30 to 50 persons per year are thus admitted provisionally by way of family reunification.

...

169.  The Commissioner, emphasising the importance of family reunification for the integration of individuals in need of international protection, recommends that the Swiss authorities carry out a major review of the regulatory framework and practice of family reunification for recognised refugees and those who are admitted provisionally, in order to guarantee family reunification procedures that are flexible, rapid and efficient for all refugees. In particular there should not be any discrimination stemming from a distinction between refugees under the 1951 Convention and provisionally admitted refugees. On this subject the Commissioner would point out that a time-frame of over a year for the family reunification process is unsatisfactory. The Swiss authorities should also allow both parents and siblings to reunite when an unaccompanied minor is the sponsor (that is, the first family member arriving in a host State). Lastly, the Commissioner would draw the attention of the Swiss authorities to the recommendations made in the thematic document 'Realising the right to family reunification of refugees in Europe'."

    2. Observations by United Nations Treaty Bodies
   

57.  The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Children (CRC) stated in its Concluding Observations on Switzerland of 26 February 2015 (CRC/C/CHE/CO/2-4):

"68.  ... [T]he Committee remains concerned ... in relation to the reservation made to article 10 of the Convention [on the Rights of the Child], that the right to family reunification for persons granted provisional admission is too restricted ...

69.  The Committee recommends that the State party:

...

(b)  Review its system for family reunification, in particular for persons granted provisional admission; ..."

In its Concluding Observations on Switzerland of 22 October 2021 (CRC/C/CHE/CO/5-6), the Committee stated:

"42.  ... The Committee is concerned that:

...

(d)  Provisionally admitted persons or refugees are subject to a waiting period of three years for family reunification with their children, and family reunification is possible only if certain conditions are met; ...

43.  ... [T]he Committee recommends that the State party:

...

(g)  Review its system of family reunification, in particular for persons granted provisional admission or provisionally admitted refugees; ..."

58.  The United Nations Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) stated in its Concluding Observations on Switzerland of 18 November 2019 (E/C.12/CHE/CO/4):

"42.  The Committee is concerned about the many legal and practical barriers that restrict access to family reunification for persons with refugee status or temporary refugee status and foreign nationals admitted on a temporary basis. It is also concerned that article 85 (7) of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration might deter foreign nationals admitted on a temporary basis from applying for social assistance and that a victim of spousal abuse might be reluctant to leave the family home for fear of losing his or her right of residence (art. 10).

43.  The Committee recommends that the State party review its legislation and its practice relating to the requirements for family reunification applicable to persons with refugee status or temporary refugee status and persons admitted on a temporary basis, with a view to prioritizing family reunification and facilitating the integration of such persons into the State party."

59.  The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) stated in its Concluding Observations on Switzerland of 13 March 2014 (CERD/C/CHE/CO/7-9):

"16.  ... [T]he Committee expresses deep concern at the undue hardship faced by persons who are granted [provisional admission] status if they remain in the State party for a long time. It notes with concern that this status is not linked with a residence permit, and imposes restrictions on 'F' permit holders in most areas of their lives, which could give rise to de facto discrimination against such vulnerable non-citizens, including ... (b) de facto lack of access to employment due, inter alia, to the perceived uncertainty of the provisional admission status; (c) the lengthy waiting period of three years or more for family reunification, which also requires an adequate level of income and a suitable place of accommodation ...

The Committee urges the State party to eliminate any indirect discrimination and undue obstacles for persons granted provisional admission status to enjoy their basic human rights. ... The Committee recommends that the State party eliminate disproportionate restrictions on the rights of provisionally admitted persons, in particular those who have been in the State party for a long time, ... by facilitating the process of family unification and access to employment ..."

    3. FURTHER RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL, EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW
   

60.  The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees does not contain a specific provision on refugees' right to family reunification, nor does the 1967 Additional Protocol thereto. In its Conclusion No. 24 (XXXII) on Family Reunification (1981), the UNHCR's Executive Committee stated:

"1.  In application of the Principle of the unity of the family and for obvious humanitarian reasons, every effort should be made to ensure the reunification of separated refugee families.

2.  For this purpose it is desirable that countries of asylum and countries of origin support the efforts of the High Commissioner to ensure that the reunification of separated refugee families takes place with the least Possible delay.

...

9.  In appropriate cases family reunification should be facilitated by special measures of assistance to the head of family so that economic and housing difficulties in the country of asylum do not unduly delay the granting of permission for the entry of the family members."

61.  Article 10(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that "[i]n accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1 [no separation of children and parents against their will], applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner." In its General Comment No. 6 on the Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin (CRC/GC/2005/6) of 1 September 2005, the CRC considered:

"81.  ... [A]ll efforts should be made to return an unaccompanied or separated child to his or her parents except where further separation is necessary for the best interests of the child ...

...

83.  Whenever family reunification in the country of origin is not possible, ...the obligations under article 9 and 10 of the Convention come into effect and should govern the host country's decisions on family reunification therein. ..."

    62.  Further relevant international law and material, European Union law and other European material is summarised in
    M.A. v. Denmark
    (cited above, §§ 36-62). Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ 2003 L 251, page 12 ("the Family Reunification Directive", cited at §§ 45-50 of that judgment with further background information), sets out common rules on the exercise of the right to family reunification by third country nationals residing lawfully in EU member States. Chapter V of the Directive provides for more favourable treatment with respect to family reunification for refugees than for other third-country nationals, with no distinction made between different 1951 Convention refugees. In particular, whereas waiting periods and accommodation, insurance, and income requirements may be applied, under the Directive, to applications for family reunification by third country nationals who are not refugees (Articles 7 and 8), the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) provides that refugees' right to family reunification must not be made conditional on compliance with integration measures, or on producing evidence that the refugee in question has sufficient accommodation, sickness insurance, and financial resources to maintain himself or herself and his or her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the member State concerned. However, under the third subparagraph of Article 12(1), member States may require refugees to meet the conditions set out in Article 7(1) of the Directive - i.e. sufficient accommodation, insurance and income - if the application for family reunification is not submitted within a period of three months after the granting of the refugee status.
   

    63.  In its judgment in
    K and B
    (C-380/17, EU:C:2018:877, 7 November 2018), the Court of Justice of the European Union found that Article 12(1) of the Directive did not preclude national legislation which permitted an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee's family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that Directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules [notably those laid down in Article 7(1) of the Directive] provided that that legislation (i) laid down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable; (ii) laid down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and (iii) ensured that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the Directive. The decision of a member State to require that the conditions set out in Article 7(1) of the Directive are satisfied does not prevent the merits of the request for family reunification being examined, with due regard, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17 of the Directive, to the best interests of minor children, the nature and solidity of the person's family relationships and the duration of his/her residence in the Member State and of the existence of family, cultural and social ties with his/her country of origin (§ 52).
   

64.  Article 12(2) of the Directive provides that refugees shall not be required to have resided in a member State's territory for a certain period of time before becoming eligible for family reunification. Where family reunification is possible in a third country with which the sponsor and/or family member has special links, member States may require provision of such evidence (Article 12(1), second subparagraph).

    65.  In addition to the parts cited in
    M.A. v. Denmark
    (cited above, § 60), Resolution 2243 (2018) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated:
   

"10.  The Assembly recalls that child refugees and minors have rights under the revised European Social Charter (ETS No. 163), including the right to financial and other support by the authorities of the States in which they reside. Therefore, family reunification should not be dependent on the financial situation of a parent who is a migrant or refugee. In this context, the Assembly notes with concern that children are sometimes left behind in another country for financial reasons ..."

    66.  Comparative law information concerning the right to family reunification of refugees and other persons in need of international protection and the conditions under which that right is granted, including in particular compliance with waiting periods, in Council of Europe member States is contained in
    M.A. v. Denmark
    (cited above, § 69). According to information available to the Court at that time, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection were treated less favourably than refugees in six States, in respect of requirements to have sufficient accommodation, health, insurance and financial resources at their disposal. The vast majority of States did not distinguish between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in this regard.
   

 

Erwägungen

THE LAW

    I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
   

67.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

    2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE REQUESTS FOR FAMILY REUNIFICATION
   

68.  The applicants in all four applications complained that the refusal of their requests for family reunification had breached their right to respect for their family life as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. That provision reads as follows:

"1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

    1. Admissibility
   

69.  The Court considers that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

    2. Merits
   

    1. The parties' submissions
   

    1. The applicants
   

    70.  The applicants residing in Switzerland in applications nos.
    13258/18
    and
    15500/18
    emphasised that they were refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Convention, and that under Swiss law there was no difference, in terms of nature and duration, between the stay of refugees who were granted asylum and that of refugees who were provisionally admitted. There was a consensus at international and European level on the need for refugees to have the benefit of a family reunification procedure that was more favourable than that provided for other aliens (they referred to
    Tanda-Muzinga v. France
    , no. 2260/10, § 75, 10 July 2014, and
    Mugenzi v. France
    , no.
    52701/09
    , § 54, 10 July 2014). In the case of refugees, there were insurmountable obstacles to their continuing a family life elsewhere: it was notably not possible to live in the country of origin where they faced a risk of persecution, but the Court had also recognised this where a family member of a refugee had been in a third, transit country, as in
    Tanda-Muzinga
    and
    Mugenzi
    . The applicants in all four applications submitted that, in reality, having their requests for family reunification granted and being allowed to continue their family life in Switzerland was the only way in which they could continue their family life.
   

    (i)  More specifically, the applicant in application no.
    15500/18
    submitted that there were insurmountable obstacles to him, his wife and their children living together in India. India had ratified neither the 1951 Convention nor the 1967 Protocol thereto, and his wife and children were staying there illegally; their access to the labour market and to education was restricted, they had no health insurance and were fully dependent on the applicant's income in Switzerland, from which he transferred between CHF 800 and CHF 1,000 to them every month. The applicant himself had no way of legally residing in India. The Federal Administrative Court had not examined any of these aspects and had exclusively focused on the risk of removal from India to the country of origin, which was the wrong standard. To rebut the submission that it was likely that he and his family had stayed in India for a longer time, the applicant pointed out that the Federal Administrative Court had found in earlier cases that most Tibetans, in particular those from the countryside, spoke little, if any, Chinese, and that the State Secretariat for Migration had published a report stating that most Tibetans crossed the border from China to Nepal in winter with the help of smugglers.
   

    (ii)  The applicants in application no.
    13258/18
    submitted that the second applicant was not legally residing in Sudan and that the first applicant had no way of doing so. The Federal Administrative Court had not examined this aspect at all.
   

    (iii)  The applicant in application no.
    57303/18
    similarly submitted that her daughter X was not legally residing in Sudan and that she herself had no way of doing so. Moreover, her other three minor children, whom she was raising as a single parent, had all grown up in Switzerland and were integrated in that country. Moving those children to Sudan would be another uprooting for them. In that connection, she was unable to visit her daughter X in Sudan more often because she had to care for her children in Switzerland, where she was residing indefinitely.
   

    (iv)  The applicant in application no.
    9078/20
    submitted that her daughters had no lawful residence in Ethiopia and were fully dependent on the money which she transferred to them every month. The family could not live together in Ethiopia.
   

    71.  In all four applications, the applicants residing in Switzerland submitted that it was not true that they had left their family members behind voluntarily and had deliberately taken the irrevocable decision to definitively renounce their family life and abandon all ideas of family reunification when they had fled their country of origin. They maintained that they had been forced to flee their countries. The applicants in applications nos.
    13258/18
    and
    15500/18
    also referred to
    El Ghatet v. Switzerland
    (no.
    56971/10
    , § 48, 8 November 2016), where the adult applicant had left his country of origin to seek asylum in Switzerland and the Court had considered that even though that application had been rejected by the Swiss authorities, caution was called for when determining whether he had left his child behind of "his own free will". The applicants in all four applications submitted that they had attempted to bring their family members to Switzerland as soon as possible, it being borne in mind that there was a three-year waiting period for provisionally admitted refugees. The applicant in application no.
    15500/18
    added that he had waited a further nine months after the completion of the waiting period, by which time he had started permanent employment in a full-time job.
   

72.  With respect to the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance, the applicants submitted that the domestic authorities had not properly taken their particular vulnerabilities into account.

    (i)  More specifically, the applicant in application no.
    15500/18
    maintained that the authorities' calculation concerning his family's reliance on social assistance was erroneous and arbitrary. He was permanently employed in a full-time job and his ability to work was not limited by his medical condition, which only required medication. The same held true as regards his wife's ability to work; she would thus be able to contribute to the family's income. Hence, no reliance on social assistance was to be expected in the long run. It was doubtful whether the family would even be granted social assistance, given that the discrepancy between the calculated income and expenses was small and the applicant had saved some CHF 33,000. It was unacceptable to hold the fact that work in the care sector was poorly paid in Switzerland against the applicant and his family, and to deny the family reunification which had been requested on the sole ground that his salary was not sufficient to cover the calculated expenses of a family of four. This was no fault of his own, he had done all he could to be financially independent. The domestic authorities had not properly taken into account his situation as a recognised refugee when they had determined that the requirement of non-reliance on social assistance was not met. In July 2021, subsequent to the exchange of observations, the applicant informed the Court that he now earned a monthly salary of C