According to the press release of the ECtHR of 10 July 2014:

"The applicant is a Rwandan national who was born in 1950 and lives in Rouen (France). The applicant obtained refugee status and submitted an application for family reunion in March 2003 to be able to live with his children, who were then in Kenya. Although the principle of family reunification had been recognised in his case, the consular authorities refused to issue visas for his children on account of difficulties in establishing the children's civil registration status. Mr Mugenzi received this refusal on 31 August 2005.

As the procedure for family reunification concerned only children aged under nineteen years, the French Embassy in Nairobi ordered that a medical examination be carried out on his sons – apparently consisting in an examination of the mouth cavity – with a view to determining their age. After those examinations, the consular authorities concluded that there was a discrepancy between their physiological age and the age mentioned on the children's birth certificates; this was the ground for refusing to issue visas.

Mr Mugenzi applied to the Appeals Board against decisions refusing entry visas to France (“the Appeals Board”), arguing in particular that the civil registration documents submitted in support of the visa applications were those which had been submitted to OFPRA (the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons) in the course of his request for asylum, and were the only documents that he had been able to take with him when fleeing, and that his sons risked persecution were they to return to Rwanda. Although the Appeals Board issued a favourable decision in February 2007, he received another refusal to issue the visas, on the same ground.

After applying to the Conseil d'État in April 2007 requesting that this decision be quashed, and emphasising in particular that one of his sons was suffering from health problems as a result of the trauma experienced in Rwanda, Mr Mugenzi lodged an urgent application with that court in January 2008, repeating that his children were unaccompanied and that his son Lambert was suffering major psychological after-effects. On 5 February 2008 the urgent applications judge held that the “criterion of urgency” had not been met, since the two children were, or soon would be, adults. He indicated that the appeal on the merits would be examined rapidly. On 23 March 2009 the Conseil d'État gave judgment against the applicant.

The applicant relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), appealed before the ECtHR on 24 September 2009, arguing that the refusal by the consular authorities to issue visas to their children for the purpose of family reunification had infringed their right to respect for their family life.

The ECtHR considered that the disputed refusals to issue the visas had not amounted to “interference” in the exercise of the applicants' right to respect for their family life. As part of the family reunification procedure, once authorisation had been granted by the Prefect, the members of the family concerned were required to obtain an entry visa to France; the issuing of such visas was not automatic and was subject to the requirements of the maintenance of public order.

According to the applicants, however, the decision-making process which led the French authorities to refuse to issue visas to their children had not guaranteed the protection of their interests. According to the Government, the refusals in question were based on considerations of public policy, verified at several stages of the procedure, in conformity with the room for maneouvre (“margin of appreciation”) left to the national authorities in this area.

The Court accepted that the authorities were faced with a delicate task when having to assess the authenticity of certificates of civil status, on account of the difficulties occasionally arising from failings on the part of civil-status departments in certain of the migrants' countries of origin, and the associated risks of fraud. The national authorities were in principle best placed to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence gathered by or submitted to them, and they had therefore to be allowed a measure of discretion in this respect.

However, in view of the decisions to grant refugee status to the applicants, and the subsequent recognition of the principle of family reunification, it had been of overriding importance that their visa applications be examined rapidly, attentively and with particular diligence. To that end, France had been under an obligation to institute a procedure that took into account the events which had disrupted and disturbed their family lives and had led to their being granted refugee status. The Court therefore decided to focus its examination on the quality of the procedure.

The Court reiterated that family unity was an essential right for refugees and that family reunification was a fundamental element in enabling persons who had fled persecution to resume a normal life. There existed a broad consensus at the international and European level concerning the need for refugees to benefit from a more favourable family reunification procedure than that foreseen for other foreigners. Furthermore, the Court had to take account of the standards set out in the international instruments in this area and to bear in mind the recommendations made by non-governmental organisations specialising in the rights of aliens. In particular, with regard to evidence provided by the applicants, the national authorities were urged to take into consideration “other evidence” of the existence of family ties where the refugee was unable to provide official supporting documents.

The Court noted that it was a summary medical examination which proved decisive in evaluating the doubtful authenticity of the birth certificates submitted in the visa applications. Moreover, it noted the difficulties encountered by the applicants in participating effectively in the procedure and especially in putting forward “other elements” of proof of a parent-child relationship and/or the children's ages. In particular, it noted that the applicant had referred to his children from the start of his asylum applications and that OFPRA had certified the composition of his family. Thus, the Court observed that the applicant had been confronted with multiple difficulties over the years, in spite of the fact that he had already undergone traumatic experiences. Lastly, it had taken almost five years for Mr Mugenzi to obtain a final decision on their applications; in the Court's opinion, this time period was excessive, given the applicant's specific situation and what was at stake for him in the verification procedure. Accordingly, it found there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.”