A.D., an Afghan national who obtained refugee status in Greece in 2018, requested family reunification with his spouse and five children, who were residing in Afghanistan.

As part of the review of the application, the Greek Asylum Service summoned the applicant to an initial interview on 15 June 2021 and informed him that, based on the relevant legislation, he was required to provide the necessary supporting documents, duly certified and translated into Greek, namely the travel documents of his family members as well as a certificate of family status or any other document proving the family relationship between the persons covered by the application and himself. The applicant submitted plain copies of certain documents and stated that the requested documents had been submitted to the consular services for translation and certification and that he would provide them to the Asylum Service as soon as such administrative requirements were met. A.D. was given one month to clarify a detail concerning the age of one of his children. Following a clarification and amendment of the initial request, an additional interview took place on July 5. The applicant was again asked to provide the required documents, duly certified. He stated that the documents in question had been submitted to the consular office in Islamabad and that he was awaiting their return. He was granted a further three-month extension to produce them. The Asylum Service informed the applicant that, to allow for the further examination of his application for family reunification, he had to submit such documents as soon as they were certified by a Greek authority and translated into Greek.

Between 16 July 2021, and 16 November 2022, A.D. sent six emails to the consular office regarding the certification of the documents submitted on 14 April 2021, stating that the situation in Afghanistan posed a risk to his family. A.D. did not receive a response. Before the expiry of the three-month deadline, the applicant's attorney submitted to the Asylum Service a request by email for an extension of the deadline to submit the documents in question, citing the unstable situation in Afghanistan and that the consular office in Islamabad had not yet responded to the applicant's follow-up requests. The extension was granted verbally. On 30 January 2023, A.D. visited the consular office without an appointment to inquire about the status of the case. The office informed him that it was unable to certify the documents submitted in 2021 and sent an email to his attorney explaining that the office was unable to certify the documents because they had not been issued within the last 6 months.

On February 1 and 3 March 2023, A.D. sent emails to the consular office, requesting the office to find a solution. The consular office sent automated replies inviting him to schedule an appointment. On 26 May 2023, the applicant's attorney informed the consular office by email that the applicant would attempt to request the reissuance of the documents, and asked whether, once they had been verified by the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the office would proceed immediately with their certification. On the same day, the consular office replied that upon the regime change in Afghanistan, the consulate had suspended the verification of Afghan documents due to the law firm ceasing operations and due to the uncertain treatment of documents issued by an unrecognised state. On 13 July 2023, in response to an email sent by A.D., the consular office indicated that there had been no developments regarding the documents for which certification was requested. On 7 August 2023, in response to another email sent by A.D., the consular office informed him that the Greek consulate had closed his case and that there was no point in repeatedly resubmitting his case file, that his documents were now outdated, and that no new procedures were possible due to the political situation, which was not foreseen to unblock Afghan cases in the immediate future.

A.D. filed an application to the ECtHR arguing that, by requiring him to provide documents certified by the competent consular office to qualify for family reunification, although the consular office in Islamabad failed to certify in a timely manner the documents submitted to it by his family and refused to certify documents issued by the de facto authorities, and without considering any alternative solutions, Greek authorities had contravened his right to family life. He also considered himself a victim of discrimination based on his nationality in the exercise of that right, thus arguing a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR.

The AIRE Centre, the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), and the Dutch Council for Refugees submitted a third-party intervention arguing that "States insistence on bureaucratic technicalities as well as their reluctance to accept documents establishing family ties when it is objectively impossible to verify their authenticity, amount to disproportionate measures that do not pursue a legitimate aim". The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees submitted also a separate third party-intervention.

At the outset, the court highlighted that the main question was whether the Greek authorities, by failing for an extended period to rule on the applicant's request for family reunification, struck a fair balance, in accordance with their margin of appreciation, between the applicant's interest in being reunited with his family members and the interests of the respondent State. As the applicant's family members with whom he sought to be reunited have never resided in Greece, the court clarified that the case must be examined from the perspective of the State's compliance with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention.

The court ruled by unanimity that there had been a violation of Article 8 taken alone and when read in conjunction with Article 13 of the ECHR. With regard to Article 14 of the ECHR, the court found it unnecessary to examine it separately from Article 8.

The ECtHR recalled the main principles applying to family reunification cases by referencing M.A. v Denmark, (no.6697/18, 9 July 2021), and B.F. and Others v Switzerland, (no.13258/18, 4 July 2023).

Next, examining the facts of the case, the court held that while the conduct of the consular office in Islamabad had a definite impact on the case, it could not be considered a breach of the Convention and that the conduct of the Asylum Service in light of the applicant's circumstances had to be examined. The court noted that, it did not appear that the Asylum Service had attempted to determine whether the account provided by the applicant during the two interviews regarding his alleged family ties in the absence of any documentary evidence was sufficiently consistent and detailed to establish the reality of those ties. Furthermore, the court noted that the Asylum Service had not sought, through the competent Greek consular authority, an interview with the persons named in the applicant's request to verify the existence of family ties in question, or to conduct any other investigation it might have deemed necessary for that purpose.

The court reiterated its considerations in Suji v Greece (Application No.13250/23) delivered the same day and likewise concerning a family reunification case against the Greek authorities, however it held that whilst in that case the applicant was stateless and could not even obtain the requested document, in the present case the required documents were available but had not been certified by the competent consular office. The court noted that, even if the applicant had obtained new documents from the new authorities, those documents would have not been certified by the consular office in Islamabad because Greece did not recognize the Taliban regime. In this respect, the court held that due to the consular office in Islamabad's failure to certify the documents submitted to it in April 2021 and its refusal to certify documents issued by the facto authorities, the applicant was clearly objectively unable to submit the required documents. Neither the conduct of the consular office nor the respondent State's policy of not recognizing the Taliban government relieved the Asylum Service, the sole competent authority in this matter, from its obligation to seek alternative solutions on its own, including with regard to travel documents, as recommended, moreover, by the guidelines of the European Commission and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

The court concluded that, by insisting on the applicant's obligation to provide the supporting documents duly certified required by law, and by failing for an extended period to rule on his application for family reunification, the Asylum Service failed to conduct an individualized, balanced, and reasonable assessment that took into account all relevant factors, as required by the principles established in the relevant national and European case law. Specifically, it failed to take into account the obvious fact that the applicant, who had been recognized as a refugee in Greece due to his fear of persecution by the Taliban if he returned to Afghanistan, had no possibility of enjoying family life in his country of origin and that there were therefore insurmountable obstacles preventing him and his family members from living together there. Also, the court concluded that above all, the Asylum Service had failed to take into account the best interests of the applicant's minor children, as required by Article 14(5) of Decree No. 131/2006 and Article 5(5) of the Family Reunification Directive (Directive 2003/86/EC), even though they were permanently separated from their father, and moreover in an environment that had become extremely dangerous following the Taliban's seizure of power. 

In short, the court found that the competent authority did not conduct an individual assessment of the requirement of family unity and, consequently, did not examine the applicant's specific circumstances with greater flexibility. It found no grounds on the part of the Asylum Service that could justify such omission. 

The court further ruled that the competent authority prolonged failure to rule on the application in question appeared excessive in light of the long period of separation of the individual from his family and the absence in the domestic legal system of an effective remedy capable of redressing this situation. The court rejected the government's argument that the situation was due to exceptional circumstances and insurmountable obstacles, including, in particular, the Taliban's rise to power and the suspension of the certification of documents issued by them.

In conclusion, the court held that the Greek authorities failed to strike a fair balance, in accordance with their margin of appreciation, between the applicant's interest in being reunited with his family members and the interests of the respondent State. In particular, the decision-making process before the Asylum Service did not provide the guarantees of flexibility, promptness, and effectiveness required to ensure the applicant's right to respect for his family life, as protected by Article 8 of the ECHR.