Go to:
• Section A General questions
• Section B Questions on specific provisions
• Section C Final questions
• Section D Table on transposition

In October 2006 the Economic and Social Council (Conseil Economique et Social), a purely advisory body, released an opinion on immigration issues. It includes some comments on family reunification. In general, the opinion advises the government to create more simple procedures for immigration purposes.

There have been no specific debates on the Directive itself, as all the actors of society await for the transposition of the said Directive.

In the absence of a national law on family reunification and in the absence of a law transposing Directive 2003/86/EC, no change can be witnessed so far in the practice of the administration dealing with family reunification matters.

In one case it has found that the Directive has not been yet transposed and could not trace any violation of the law in the matter involved, in following words:

Enfin, en ce qui concerne les développements du demandeur quant à une prétendue violation de la directive 2003/86/CE, et abstraction faite de ce que le demandeur na indiqué aucune disposition précise de la directive en question qui aurait été violée par les décisions litigieuses, le tribunal, en labsence dune transposition en droit national des dispositions de droit communautaire en question, na relevé, à la lecture de la directive en question, aucune disposition de celle-ci qui serait de nature à entraîner lannulation des décisions sous analyse. [Tribunal administraitf, 5 avril 2006, n°20797]

In a second case, the same court was faced with a claim of the violation of Directive 2003/86/EC. However, the court annulled the decision of refusal of family reunion based on article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, without even consider the arguments relating to the Directive. [Tribunal administraitf, 4 octobre 2006, n°21135]

Thus the third-country national must hold a residence permit which allows him to stay for a long period in Luxembourg and therefore the person who shall be granted the status of foreign resident under a family reunion is supposed to fall under the same category and stay for a long time with the person who takes charge of the applicant.

Therefore one could say that in the absence of these conditions, the treatment is slightly more favourable, although these conditions are optional. Otherwise, one could argue that the conditions are the same as in the Directive.

1. For third country spouses of a third country national, there is no special provision, family reunification requests are actually met by applying the general law of 1972 on residence permits for foreigners.

2. For third country spouses of a Luxembourg national or of an EU citizen, a new grand-ducal regulation of 31 July 2006 has abolished the necessity of a work permit. It means in practice that a hurdle in order to get a residence permit (in the framework of family reunion) has fallen and allows for easier access to family reunion for those spouses concerned.

The right to family reunification of minor children has not been codified in Luxembourg law.

• a certified copy of the passport of the persons that wish to join their family in Luxembourg (applicants)
• a signed from called declaration de prise en charge, which testifies that the family members will be taken care of financially by the family member in Luxembourg
• evidence that the family member who is about to join his family is financially dependent on the family member living in Luxembourg
• evidence that nobody else of the family can take care of the applicants
• a document certifying the marital status of the applicants (=extrait de létat civil)
• a birth certificate of the applicants
• a legalised excerpt of the convictions record of the applicants
• evidence of a decent lodging conditions in Luxembourg
• evidence that the family member in Luxembourg has sufficient financial means to pay for residence costs of applicants (i.e. the salary paid within the last 3 months)

Article 6 of the same law allows the same consequence, in case of a foreigner compromising, through his behaviour, public tranquillity, public policy or public security.

There are no definitions in the law of these concepts. It is up to the courts to decide upon individual cases, according also to the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However for self-employment, the administrative rule is to grant a residence permit under family reunion only after three years.

However, only persons, who are regularly allowed to stay on Luxembourg soil, may benefit from such document. This document may be relevant to establish a family relationship.

The third country spouses of Luxembourgers or other EU citizens are exempted from this requirements (grand-ducal regulation of 31 July 2006).

As such there is no provision on an autonomous or non-autonomous residence permit in the law. The situation of the spouse/partner or parents/child is obviously scrutinised.

It may be applicable if the child is over 18 years old and does not have a job, in order to be financially autonomous.

However in practice, fraud is considered as an offence against public policy and public security, so that a withdrawal of a residence permit happens on this ground.

Checks and practices are, in theory at least, compatible with article 16 (4).

The review is only on based on legally grounds (recours en annulation) and is not a full review, although the difference between the two kinds of review is not so big.

Also some clauses of protection like taking the interests of the child or facilitating the issuance of visas are positive points.

The negative sides of the Directive are the very low common minimum standards, which do not force the Luxembourg administration to modify very much its law in order to abide by its principles.

The provisions which were attacked at the ECJ by the European Parliament should be amended.

• Droit asile 2006
• Loi Etrangers
• Reg. titre de voyage
• Reg. GD 1972 etrangers et travail

--

--

• Jugement 4 octobre 2006 21135/2006 Tribunal Administratif du GD de Luxembourg
• Jegement 5 avril 2006 20797/2005 Tribunal Administratif du GD de Luxembourg

• correct transposition
• no transposition
• violation of the Directive
• unclear