According to CJEU:

"The applicant brought two actions before the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings), seeking annulment of the decisions of 17 March 2020 of the authorised representative of the minister van Sociale Zaken en Volksgezondheid, en van Asiel en Migratie (Minister for Social Affairs and Public Health, and of Asylum Policy and Migration) refusing to grant her a visa for family reunification with her daughter, who was recognised as a refugee in Belgium, and refusing to issue humanitarian visas for the applicant’s two underage sons.

The subject and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the term ‘unaccompanied minor’ within the meaning of Article 2(f) read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86.

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Should European Union law, in particular Article 2(f) read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as meaning that a refugee who is an ‘unaccompanied minor’, and who resides in a Member State, must be ‘unmarried’ under national law in order to enjoy the right to family reunification with relatives in the direct ascending line? If so, can a refugee minor whose marriage contracted abroad is not recognised for public policy reasons be regarded as an ‘unaccompanied minor’ within the meaning of Articles 2(f) and 10(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC?