According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network: 

"The applicants are Syrian nationals. They seek visas for family reunification with their father who was recognized as a refugee in Germany. After being recognized as refugee and being granted a residence permit, the applicants' father submitted notifications to the competent immigration authorities within the time limit (Sec. 29 (2) Residence Act) for family reunification of their family members (wife and children) residing abroad at a time when the applicants were still minors. The family members then submitted formal visa applications in person to the German embassy in Beirut at a time when the applicants were already of legal age, whereupon the embassy rejected the applicants' visa applications. The other family members were granted visas, on the basis of which they entered the Federal Republic of Germany and were issued residence permits accordingly.

The applicants filed an action against the refusal of being granted visas for family reunification. The Administrative Court obliged the defendant to issue visas for family reunification (also) to the applicants. The notifications made by the fathers to the competent authority within the deadline would also comply with the three-month deadline for the submission of visa applications in accordance with the case law of the CJEU. In addition, the other requirements for the granting of residence permits for the reunification of children with recognized refugees according to Sec. 32 (1) of the Residence Act would be met. With the appeals allowed by the Administrative Court, the defendant contested the obligation to issue visas to the applicants. In order to meet the deadline, the time of the formal visa application at the foreign missions, at which the applicants had already reached their age of majority, was to be taken into account; the requirements for the granting of residence permits for the subsequent immigration of children and the corresponding granting of visas to the applicants on other legal bases were not met.

The Federal Administrative Court rejected the appeal concluding that the applicants had a direct claim under Art. 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC as to where Member States allow the minor children of the sponsor, who has custody and is responsible for the maintenance of the children, to enter and reside. With regard to the reunification of children with a parent recognized as a refugee, the CJEU has interpreted Art. 4 (1) subpara. 1 lit. c of the Directive 2003/86/EC to the effect that, if the child reached the age of majority before the reunifying parent was recognized as a refugee and before the application for family reunification was submitted, the relevant date for determining whether the child is a minor within the meaning of this provision is the date on which the reunifying parent submitted his or her application for asylum, provided that the application for family reunification was submitted within three months of the reunifying parent being recognized as a refugee (judgment of 1 August 2022 - C-279/20, judgment of 12 April 2018 - C-550/16), whereby the time limit for applying for a visa cannot begin to run before the child concerned comes of age (judgment of 30 January 2024 - C-560/20). In the present case, the applicants did not comply with the applicable deadlines for the visa application. With reference to the regulatory goals of Directive 2003/86/EG, i.e facilitation family reunifications, in particular for family members of recognized refugees, the protection of minors, the EU principle of effectiveness as well as Sec. 7 and Sec. 24 paras 2, 3 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Federal Administrative Court concluded that a late submission of an application cannot, however, be held against the child wishing to be reunified with its family if sufficient information about the deadline and the measures required to meet it was not provided and the failure to meet the deadline was objectively excusable due to special circumstances. This was here the case. The applicants could not have been aware that the visa application was subject to the aforementioned time limit, as it was developed in the decisions of the CJEU (judgments of 12 April 2018 - C-550/16, of 1 August 2022 - C-279/20 - and of 30 January 2024 - C-560/20), which were only made after the expiry of the time limits to be observed in the case of the applicants. Insofar as the defendant referred to the possibility of submitting a visa application during the course of the time limit in a manner other than in person at a diplomatic mission abroad, the applicants were not informed of this in a sufficiently clear and unambiguous manner. Rather, in the absence of any reliable information to the contrary, the applicants were under the impression that they had done everything necessary to meet the deadline with the letter from their father dated 2 February 2016."