The daughter of A and S applied for asylum in the Netherlands as an unaccompanied child on 26 February 2014. On 2 June 2014, she attained her majority. The State Secretary granted her a residence permit for persons granted asylum, valid for five years, with effect from the date on which her application was submitted. On 23 December 2014, an application for temporary residence permits based on family reunification was submitted on her behalf for her parents and her three minor brothers. On 27 May 2015, the State Secretary rejected the application on the grounds that, at the date of submission, the daughter of A and S had reached the age of majority. On appeal to the District Court of the Hague, the court decided to stay the proceedings and refer a question for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The question concerned whether Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86 (Family Reunification Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the time their entry into the territory of a Member State and of the submission of their asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is, thereafter, granted asylum with retroactive effect to the date of their application must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of that provision.

The court noted that the Family Reunification Directive does not explicitly determine the moment until which a refugee must be a minor to be able to benefit from the right to family reunification in Article 10(3)(a), and that from the objective and the wording of that provision, no discretion is conferred on Member States to determine it. So, the court determined what should be understood as the specific moment by examining the wording, the directive's general scheme and objective, the regulatory context in which it is found, and the general principles of EU law. The CJEU held that to make the right to family reunification under Article 10(3)(a) depend upon the moment at which the competent national authority formally adopts the decision recognising the refugee status of the person concerned and, therefore, on how quickly or slowly the application for international protection is processed by that authority, would call into question the effectiveness of that provision and would go against not only the aim of that directive, which is to promote family reunification and to grant in that regard a specific protection to refugees, in particular unaccompanied minors, but also the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty. It would be unforeseeable for unaccompanied minors who applied for international protection to know whether they will be entitled to the right to family reunification with their parents, which might undermine legal certainty.

The court concluded that in contrast, taking the date on which the application for international protection was submitted as that by reference which it is appropriate to assess the age of a refugee for the purposes of Article 10(3)(a) enables identical treatment and foreseeability to be guaranteed for all applicants who are in the same situation chronologically, by ensuring that the success of the application for family reunification depends principally upon facts attributable to the applicant and not to the administration such as the time taken processing the application for international protection or the application for family reunification.

The court ruled out the other dates suggested. Regarding the date of entry into the territory of a Member States, the court held that it cannot, in principle, be held to be determinative due to the intrinsic link between the right to family reunification and refugee status. The date on which the application for family reunification is submitted and the date on which it is decided were neither considered adequate by the court, as the right to family reunification cannot depend on the moment on the moment at which the competent national authority formally adopts the decision recognising that the sponsor has refugee status.