A stateless Rohingya of Myanmar obtained refugee status in Greece on 19 April 2019. On 28 August 2019, he submitted a request for family reunification to the Greek Asylum Service (GAS) to reunite with his spouse and two minor children who were residing in Bangladesh. During an initial and a supplementary interview taking place on 13 January and 2 February 2021, GAS indicated to the applicant that he had the obligation to provide, according to the relevant legislation, 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 applicant and the individuals involved in the application. The applicant submitted documents to GAS containing the identity information of his family members as well as a family attestation issued to him by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Furthermore, he stated that his family members did not posess any travel documents because they belonged to the Rohingya minority.

In the meantime, on 29 January 2021, the applicant's attorney informed the Greek Consulate in New Delhi and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the applicant's situation via email. In the absence of a response, she sent another email on 5 February 2021 explaining that the applicant and his family members were stateless persons belonging to the Rohingya minority and that it was objectively impossible for them to obtain travel documents from any authority whatsoever, that they could only obtain UNHCR-issued identity documents and that the one-way emergency travel document issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) could only be issued after a positive decision on the application for family reunification. However, the attorney remarked that during his interviews, the applicant was asked to provide the travel documents as a requirement for his application to be reviewed, and he was given a three-month deadline. She urged those authorities to facilitate the issuance of a travel document or to find an alternative solution. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied to the applicant's attorney that the issue raised fell outside its jurisdiction. The ICRC informed the applicant that it could issue emergency travel documents only if the request came from a diplomatic or consular authority, the UNHCR, or the International Organization for Migration.

On 15 July 2022, the applicant's attorney sent a letter to the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ICRC and the Greek Consular Office in New Delhi, the Honorary Consulate General of Greece in Dhaka and to the Greek Ombudsman a letter reiterating the applicant's situation and proposing, as an alternative solution, that a DNA test be conducted as soon as possible, instead of the requiring the submission of documents proving the family relationship.

On 3 November 2023, the Asylum Service granted the request for family reunification. In November 2024, the applicant's family members arrived in Greece.

The representatives of the applicant filed an application before the ECtHR arguing there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, Article 8 read with Article 14 ECHR and Article 8 read with Article 13 of the ECHR.

After filing the application, the representatives of the applicant informed the court that on 6 June 2025, the Asylum Service had decided not to renew the applicant's eldest son's residence permit, arguing that he had reached adulthood and no longer met the legal requirements for renewal of the residence permit that had been granted to him as a dependent family member of a family receiving international protection. They argued before the ECtHR that such a development seriously undermined the son's right to family life under the Convention and that, as a result of the decision, the son found himself without legal status in Greece and at risk of deportation. The court considered that the allegation that the non-renewal of the applicant's son's residence permit violated the applicant's right to family life could not be regarded as an extension of the initial complaint.

The ECtHR concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8, taken alone and when read with Article 13 ECHR.

The third-party interventions from the AIRE Centre, ECRE, and the Dutch Council for Refugees submitted that members of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar are denied Burmese citizenship by the Government of Myanmar and are unable to access documents that have been confiscated or destroyed by the military. They highlighted that such a situation, combined with Bangladesh's refusal to grant Bangladeshi nationality to Rohingya children born in the country, perpetuates an intergenerational cycle of statelessness. Furthermore, the intervening third parties argued that for stateless refugees to have access to family reunification procedures on an equal footing with other refugees, there must be no requirement in law or in practice. Imposing such requirements would not pursue a legitimate aim consistent with the spirit of the Convention. They further stated that such a differential treatment would not be proportionate, given the vulnerability and legal uncertainty of stateless persons and the disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life.

The court recalled the main principles applying to family reunification cases by referencing M.A. v Denmark (Application no.6697/18, 9 July 2021) and B.F. and Others v Switzerland (Application no.13258/18, 4 July 2023). It then examined the facts of the case and noted that the Asylum Service refrained from ruling on the application for more than four years solely because the applicant had not provided supporting documents required by national law. The court held that the competent authority should have been aware that the applicant was objectively unable to provide the supporting documents requested in order to review his application for family reunification. It noted that the Asylum Service only reconsidered the request after the Government was contacted and presented with evidence establishing the impossibility for members of the Rohingya minority to access documents, even though such information was publicly available and accessible at the time the applicant filed and during the two interviews the applicant held with the Asylum Service.

Next, the court noted that although the Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EC) and Decree No.131/2006 require the competent authorities to take into account other evidence when the refugee is unable to provide official supporting documents establishing family ties, no exception is provided for in cases where the missing documents are the family members' travel documents. The court found it difficult to affirm that such flexibility would not apply to the travel documents of a refugee's family members. Referring to relevant national case law, including case ΔΠΑ 493/2020 (20 January 2021) the court held that the failure to produce such documents must not result in the rejection of the application for family reunification, and the administration must conduct an individualised and specifically reasoned assessment of whether, given the circumstances of each case, the situation is justified or not. If so, every effort must be made to obtain the identity information of the refugee's family members from other available evidence.

The court concluded that it was clear from the file that, prior to the referral of the case to the Government, the Greek authorities failed to take any action. By insisting on the applicant's obligation to provide the supporting documents 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 individualised and specifically reasoned assessment of whether, given the particular circumstances invoked by the applicant, the failure to submit the supporting documents in question was justified or not. In particular, the court held that the Asylum Service paid no attention to the objective impossibility for the applicant and his family members to provide the required supporting documents due to their statelessness. Furthermore, the court ruled that it failed to ensure the effective exercise of the right to family reunification, as it did not examine the possibility of alternative solutions to remedy the absence of the required supporting documents, nor did it consider those proposed by the applicant. Additionally, the court held that the Asylum Service had failed to consider the obvious fact that the applicant had no possibility of enjoying family life in his country of origin and that there were therefore insurmountable obstacles to his family living together there. Above all, the Asylum Service failed to consider the best interests of the applicant's minor children, even though they were permanently separated from their father. In conclusion, the court found no grounds in the case that could justify these failures.

Lastly, the court held that the delay of four years to decide appeared excessive in light of the long period during which the applicant was separated from his family and the absence of an effective remedy in the domestic legal system enabling him to challenge the administration's failure to issue a decision on the application in question.