EHRM, 09-07-2021, nr. 6697/18

The applicant did not dispute that the interference with his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring immigration control and protecting the economic well-being of the country.

However, he maintained that the refusal to grant him family reunification with his wife had not been necessary in a democratic country.

The applicant found that a waiting period of one year would be reasonable. However, he did not find that a waiting period of three years was reasonable or proportionate.

He recalled that according to the preparatory notes the legislature had admitted that there would be a certain risk that the Court would overrule the three-year waiting period as being non-compliant with Article 8. Moreover, at the relevant time UNHCR, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Commissioner for Human Rights had expressed concern as to the extension by Denmark of the required period of residence from one year to three years. The applicant agreed with the Commissioner's recommendation that waiting periods of more than one year should be considered inappropriate.

It was true that family reunification could be granted under section 9c if international obligations would make it appropriate, but in his view the said provision was applied very strictly and in an inappropriate manner. In his case section 9c(1) of the Aliens Act had thus not been applied, because the authorities had failed to balance the competing interests and to consider the particular circumstances of the case. In his case, no proper regard had been had to the fact that his marriage had taken place pre-flight, that it had been long-standing, and that he could be considered vulnerable in view of his need for international protection. He noted that the authorities had also failed to consider whether Denmark's reception capacity at the time of his application had been limited in terms of quantity.

The applicant pointed out that having been married to his wife for twenty-five years, with two children being born to them, the strength of the ties between the spouses could not be called into question. He also noted that in its judgment of 6 November 2017 the Supreme Court had acknowledged that owing to the civil war insurmountable obstacles had prevented him from returning to Syria and enjoying family life with his wife there. In such a situation, the applicant submitted, the State was under an obligation to allow family reunification regardless of residence status.

Moreover, the applicant contended, there had never been any evidence to justify the temporary nature of his protection, which had also been the case when the law suspending his right for three years was adopted by the Danish Parliament in 2016.

He pointed out that the separation of the family would be longer de facto than the three-year waiting period, since it had previously taken some time to process the request for protection, and it had since taken further time to process the request for family unification. In total he had thus been separated from his wife for four years and two months, since he had entered Denmark in April 2015 and family reunification had been granted in June 2019.

He reiterated that Convention rights ought to be secured by the member States in a manner such as to render the rights practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory. A statutory suspension of the applicant's right to family reunification for several years would, in his view, render his right to family life theoretical and illusory.

The applicant also submitted that international consensus and relevant comparable case-law by the Court supported the view that he and others in need of subsidiary protection were entitled to more preferential treatment in respect of family reunification than could be derived from the ordinary principles relating to Article 8. He referred, inter alia, to Tanda- Muzinga v. France (no. 2260/10, 10 July 2014) and Mugenzi v. France, (no. 52701/09, 10 July 2014). In the former judgment (§ 75), the Court confirmed that ‘family unity was an essential right of refugees’ and that ‘family reunification was an essential element in enabling persons who had fled persecution to resume a normal life’. This was true not only for refugees covered by the UN Convention, but also for persons in need of other types of international protection on humanitarian grounds.

The need for family unity should not be dependent on a person's status, but on the gravity of the obstacles preventing that person from enjoying family life in his or her country of origin. Furthermore, family reunification was important for successful integration and for the mental health of people who had fled their country in order to seek international protection. The applicant had limited contact with his wife through phone calls and text messages. He suffered serious depression due to his separation from his family, his worries about his family's well-being and the uncertainty as to when and whether he would be reunited with them.

The applicant also referred to Mengesha Kimfe v. Switzerland (no. 24404/05, 29 July 2010), concerning a married couple who had been placed in different cantons after having been denied asylum. Although that situation could be seen merely as a temporary measure until the deportation could be effected, and although the applicants were not legally residing in Switzerland, the Court found that the separation had breached their right to respect for family life.

Finally, he maintained that the Government had not pointed to any case-law where protection of the economic well-being of a country had carried significant weight due to the reception of a high number of asylum-seekers (see, inter alia, M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece, no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011 and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, no. 16483/12, 15 December 2016). It should be noted that in 2016 Denmark had received only 6,266 asylum-seekers out of the anticipated 37,000. Only a few of these had been granted temporary protection status, showing that this category of asylum-seekers did not in fact place a major burden on the economic well-being of Denmark. Thus, when the Immigration Appeals Board took its decision of 16 September 2016 it was already evident that Denmark did not receive the expected numbers of asylum-seekers. That was even more evident at the time when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment of 6 November 2017.

The Government observed from the outset that the refusal to grant the applicant family reunification with his wife had been merely temporary.

They submitted that there was no Article 8 case-law relating to a waiting period for family reunification of beneficiaries of temporary protection due to a general risk in their home country.

In Tanda-Muzinga V. France (cited above, § 75) and Mugenzi v. France, (cited above, § 54), the Court had held ‘that family unity is an essential right of refugees and that family reunion is an essential element in enabling persons who have fled persecution to resume a normal life [and] had noted that there exists a consensus at international and European level on the need for refugees to benefit from a family reunification procedure that is more favourable than that provided for other aliens’.

However, the applicants in those judgments had been refugees recognised under the UN Convention, who had held permanent residence permits. The cases concerned procedural matters relating to the length of time taken to issue visas, rather than a decision to postpone the granting of family reunification to someone only in temporary need of protection.

In Senigo Longue and Others v. France (no. 19113/09, 10 July 2014), the applicant held a permanent residence permit, after having been granted family reunification with her spouse in France. The case did not concern the eighteen months that she had to wait under French law before being able to apply for family reunification with her children but the lengthy processing time following the lodging of the application.

Accordingly, the Government took the view that the ordinary principles governing family reunification as set out in Jeunesse v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 12738/10, § 107, 3 October 2014) should apply to the present case.

They did not contest the fact that the Immigration Appeals Board decision of 16 September 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant's wife a residence permit had entailed an interference with the applicant's right to respect for family life under Article 8 § 1. In their view, however, the refusal was justified under Article 8 § 2.

In this regard, the Government maintained that the refusal had been in accordance with the law, namely section 9(l)(i)(d) of the Aliens Act, because the applicant had not had a residence permit under section 7(3) for the last three years as required by law and because there were no exceptional reasons, including regard for the unity of the family, to justify family reunification under section 9c(l) of the Aliens Act.

Moreover, the decision had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting ‘the economic well-being of the country’. The statutory waiting period of three years had been introduced due to concern about the mass influx of asylum-seekers emanating from the conflict in Syria, and in order to ensure that their integration could be successful. They pointed out that ‘ensuring the effective implementation of immigration control’ could be a legitimate aim in terms of preserving the economic well-being of a country, which could justify an interference with family life (see, inter alia, Berrehab v. the Netherlands, no. 10730/84, § 26, 21 June 1988; Nacic and Others v. Sweden, no. 16567/10, § 79, 15 May 2012; and J.M. v. Sweden, no. 47509/13, § 40, 8 April 2014).

Finally, the Government maintained that the decision had been necessary in a democratic society. They referred to the Supreme Court's reasoning in its judgment of 6 November 2017, and highlighted the fact that the main reason for the amendment of section 9(l)(i)(d) had been the sudden influx of asylum-seekers in the relevant years (7,557 in 2013, 14,792 in 2014, and 21,316 in 2015), which had made it necessary to strike a proper balance, to ensure effective integration, and to maintain a good and safe society.

The applicant had been in Denmark for one year and three months when the Immigration Service refused his application. Again it should be stressed that the restriction on his right to exercise family life with his wife was only temporary. Should the general situation in his home country not improve, he would be eligible for family reunification after three years.

Moreover, by virtue of section 9c(1) of the Aliens Act, in the event of exceptional circumstances, such as serious illness, family reunification could have been granted earlier. During the period from 20 February 2015 to 31 July 2017 the Immigration Board had granted family reunification under section 9c(1) to spouses and children in seventy-nine cases, totalling 25% of the requests examined (see paragraph 64 above).

The Government also emphasised that the applicant had been granted temporary protection in Denmark on account of the general situation in his home country, which could change quite quickly (see for example, Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011, and K.A.B. v. Sweden, no. 886/11, 5 September 2013, as regards the situation in Mogadishu, Somalia).

The Government added in this connection that on 11 December 2018 UNHCR had briefed that during the same year 37,000 refugees had returned to Syria, and that they had forecast that around 250,000 would return in 2019. Moreover, to the UNHCR Operational Portal on Syria Regional Refugee Response, Durable Solutions indicates a tentative number of 87,858 voluntary Syrian refugee returns in 2019 from the regional neighbouring countries. The Government also submitted that in February 2019, the Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council had published the report ‘Syria, Security Situation in Damascus Province and Issues regarding Return to Syria’, concluding that the general security situation in government controlled areas in Syria, particularly in Damascus Province, had improved.

The Government observed that in the relevant years, similar measures providing for waiting periods for family reunification had been provided for under international and European Union law, and had been introduced by other countries in respect of beneficiaries of subsidiary and temporary protection, notably in Germany, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Latvia and Norway. Moreover, a number of EU member States, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Cyprus, Malta, Greece and Finland, had introduced legislation which distinguished between UN Convention refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

In conclusion, the Government submitted that in the applicant's case a fair balance had been struck within the margin of appreciation that the State enjoyed in cases concerning family reunification under Article 8 of the Convention.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights found it important for all those granted international protection to benefit from family reunification, be it UN Convention refugees or refugees with another status.

She submitted that long-term family separation had major negative consequences for the beneficiary of protection and for the family members left behind, as well as for the objective of successful integration and the avoidance of dangerous irregular migration to Europe. The consequences could be exacerbated, for example, where the person fleeing was the main provider for a family.

The Commissioner also noted the importance of family reunification as a safe and legal route for family members to travel to Council of Europe member States, thus reducing recourse to smugglers and mitigating the risks associated with irregular migration.

The Commissioner had called on the member States of the Council of Europe to ensure that persons under subsidiary or temporary protection would be granted the same family reunification rights as UN Convention refugees, and she had set out recommendations with a view to ensuring that effect was given to the Court's case-law to the effect that all refugee family reunification procedures should be flexible, prompt and effective, in order to ensure protection for the right to respect for family life. Specifically, the Commissioner had recommended that waiting times of more than one year should be considered inappropriate.

By letter of January 2016 to the Danish Minister for Immigration, Integration and Housing, the Commissioner had expressed concern about the extension to three years of the waiting period for family reunification in respect of beneficiaries of temporary protection under section 7(3) of the Aliens Act. In particular, this measure raised issues of compatibility with Article 8 of the Convention.

The Commissioner maintained that the three-year waiting period applied in Denmark significantly overran what she considered appropriate and that it could be compared to the period which was considered excessive by the Court in Tanda-Muzinga (cited above).

UNHCR addressed the domestic legislative framework and practice applicable to beneficiaries of temporary protection status applying for family reunification in Denmark and provided its interpretation of the relevant principles of international refugee and human rights law.

UNHCR found that the requirement for persons with temporary protection status to have resided in Denmark for a three-year period before becoming eligible to apply for family reunification, was at variance with both international and European human rights law, as it undermined the fundamental right to family life for persons in need of international protection and excluded certain groups in a disproportionate and discriminatory fashion, contrary to what was required under Article 8 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14.

UNCHR noted that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Denmark, 15 August 2016, had expressed concern about the application of the three-year waiting period for holders of temporary protection status. The Committee recommended that Denmark ‘should consider reducing the duration of residence required of persons under temporary protection status in order for them to obtain family reunification, in compliance with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’.

UNHCR referred to its statement in its Summary Conclusions on the Right to Family Life and Family Unity in the Context of Family Reunification of Refugees and Other Persons In Need Of International Protection, 4 December 2017, that ‘when refugees were separated from family members as a consequence of their flight, a prolonged separation could have devastating consequences on the well-being of the refugees and their families’.

Furthermore, UNHCR held that family reunification was essential for refugees to enjoy the fundamental right to family life and that there was no reason to distinguish between refugees and subsidiary protection beneficiaries in this regard. Observing that the Court has recognised that the fact that a person has already obtained international protection was proof of his or her vulnerability, and that there existed a broad consensus at the international and European level on the need for refugees to benefit from a more favourable family reunification regime than other foreigners, UNHCR maintained that this was equally important for other beneficiaries of subsidiary or temporary protection.

UNHCR underlined that distinctions between beneficiaries of international protection were often neither necessary nor objectively justified in terms of flight experience and protection needs. UNHCR maintained that there was no evidence that the protection needs of subsidiary protection beneficiaries (status 2 and 3 in the Danish context) would, in all or most cases, be of a different nature or shorter duration than the need for protection as refugees (status 1). In practice, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection were generally not able to return home earlier than refugees.

Finally, UNHCR endorsed a resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, adopted in 2018, which emphasised that subsidiary or temporary protection status must not be considered as an ‘alternative refugee status with fewer rights’, and indicated that States should not substitute subsidiary or temporary protection status for refugee status, in order to limit family reunification due to the temporary and personal nature of this subsidiary status (see paragraph 60 above).

The Government of Norway submitted that neither Article 8 nor Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 prohibited member States from requiring an alien, whose residence status was temporary and subsidiary, to fulfil economic, temporal or other requirements before claiming family reunification.

They recalled that the right of States to admit and exclude aliens from their territory was one of the fundamental components of the principle of State sovereignty. Moreover, it was paramount that deference be shown to Contracting States and their democratic legislatures in this area, to allow political leeway in responding to shifting patterns of migration and situations of mass influx.

A temporary refusal to grant family reunification with a sponsor whose residence in a Contracting State was itself temporary and based on subsidiary protection did not amount to an interference with protected family rights and did not flout any positive obligations under Article 8. It was therefore questionable whether the temporary refusal to grant a residence permit to the applicant's wife fell within the ambit of interests protected by Article 8.

The Court had always distinguished between, on the one hand, ‘settled migrants’ and, on the other hand, ‘aliens seeking admission’ and ‘aliens holding temporary permits’, as the latter two groups held a ‘precarious immigration status’. A call for such a distinction transpired from the travaux préparatoires of the Convention, where the Contracting States, when opting for a jurisdictional clause in Article 1 which would include everyone within a Contracting State's territory, specified that ‘certain of the rights enumerated under Article 2 [later Article 1] cannot be guaranteed to aliens without any restrictions, particularly the rights contained in paragraphs [sic] 6, 7, 8 and 9’.

In this respect, the Government of Norway also referred to a judgment of 8 November 2018 by the Supreme Court of Norway (case HR-2018-2133-A) concerning the withdrawal of a three-year temporary residence permit from a refugee and her daughter because the circumstances for which the mother had been granted asylum (lack of male support) had changed when her husband applied for asylum in Norway. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal did not concern an interference with family life under Article 8 § 1, as mother and daughter were not settled migrants and had not established a private life protected against removal. Consequently, no question arose under Article 8 § 2 as to whether an interference could be justified.

They also maintained that, whilst there might at present be insurmountable obstacles to pursuing family life in a country of origin, to which the sponsor was temporarily protected from return, the situation might change. In any event, requirements for family reunification that could be fulfilled, such as temporal or financial requirements, would interrupt family ties only temporarily and not definitively.

The Government of Switzerland gave an overview of the right to family reunification under its immigration and asylum law. Family reunification in Swiss law was regulated by a relatively complex set of provisions which distinguished between different groups based on the type of permit, the question of whether family ties were formed pre- or post-flight, and whether family members applying for family reunification with their refugee family member in Switzerland were already in Switzerland or were abroad at the time of the application. Briefly, in so far as relevant to the present case, Swiss law distinguished between so-called B-permits, held by individuals who had been granted asylum, and F-permits, held by individuals who were only temporarily admitted to Switzerland, including persons fleeing war, civil war or general violence. Their family reunification rights differed in several respects. Article 85 (7) of the Foreign Nationals Act provided that F-permit holders could not apply for family reunification before the expiry of a three-year period after the grant of their temporary admission.

The Government of Switzerland fully accepted that there could be positive obligations for persons admitted temporarily, but reiterated that according to established case-law, a fair balance should be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, and that in both contexts the State enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation. Thus, if the Court were to deny the member States the possibility of imposing conditions for granting family reunification, including introducing a waiting period, the obligations under Article 8 would become far too extensive, to the detriment of the public interest in ensuring effective immigration control and integration.

The submissions by the Danish Institute for Human Rights mainly contained information on international human rights standards, national laws within European Union countries and other Contracting States, on Danish law and its application, as well as an update on the developments in legislation and practice in 2019. The latter included various decisions by the Refugee Appeals Board and examples of alignments in treatment of persons in need of protection, including in the area of temporary residence. The Institute submitted that in February 2019 the Danish Parliament had adopted a bill which introduced a new way of describing the residence permits for all refugees (see paragraph 27 above). Thus, residence permits granted to refugees and their family members had been changed from being granted with ‘the possibility of permanent residence’ to ‘for the purpose of temporary residence’, stating that all refugees were granted protection in Denmark only until they no longer needed protection. The Institute also provided statistical information.

The Court notes from the outset that the applicant's complaint relates to his 4 November 2015 application for family reunification with his wife. At that time he had held a residence permit under section 7(3) of the Aliens Act for five months (since 8 June 2015).

The Immigration Service refused his request on 5 July 2016 on the grounds that he had not held a residence permit under section 7(3) for at least the last three years as required by section 9(1)(i)(d) of the Act, and that there were no exceptional reasons, including concern for the unity of the family, to justify family reunification under section 9c(1) of the Act (see paragraph 18 above). On 16 September 2016 the decision was upheld, on appeal, by the Immigration Appeals Board. At that time he had held a residence permit under section 7(3) for one year and three months.

Before the domestic courts the applicant complained that the final refusal by the Immigration Appeals Board of 16 September 2016 had been in breach of Article 8.

On 26 April 2018, having resided in Denmark for two years, ten months and two weeks, the applicant re-applied for family reunification with his wife. After he had supplemented his application, it was granted on 24 June 2019. The applicant did not challenge those administrative proceedings before the national courts or in his application lodged with Court. They are therefore not part of the subject of his case before the Court.

Against this background, the Court will confine its examination to the question whether the refusal of 16 September 2016 to grant the applicant family reunification with his wife owing to the three-year waiting period applicable to beneficiaries of temporary protection entailed a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Nor is the Court called upon to assess whether the State may impose other conditions, material or economic, for granting family reunification, as this is not at issue in the present case.

It should be noted that the applicant did not call into question that a waiting period of one year was ‘reasonable’ (see paragraph 75 above). Moreover, it was undisputed that the applicant had been entitled to submit a request for family reunification two months before the expiry of the three-year time-limit.

The Court has not previously been called on to consider whether, and to what extent, the imposition of a statutory waiting period for granting family reunification to persons who benefit from subsidiary or temporary protection status is compatible with Article 8 of the Convention. It is nonetheless instructive for the purposes of its examination of the present case to reiterate the general principles on family reunification developed in its case-law relating to other types of situations raising issues on the extent of the State's obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there, most recently summarised in Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (cited above).

In the first place it should be reiterated that a State is entitled, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there. The Convention does not guarantee the right of a foreign national to enter or to reside in a particular country (ibid., § 100).

Moreover, where immigration is concerned, Article 8 cannot be considered to impose on a State a general obligation to respect a married couple's choice of country for their matrimonial residence or to authorise family reunification on its territory. Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State's obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest and is subject to a fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests involved. Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life would effectively be ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of the alien concerned and whether there are factors of immigration control (ibid., § 107).

Finally, there is a broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests are of paramount importance. Whilst alone they cannot be decisive, such interests certainly must be afforded significant weight (ibid., § 109).

In general, in line with the above-mentioned principles, the Court has been reluctant to find that there was a positive obligation on the part of the member State to grant family reunification, when one or several of the following circumstances, not all of which are relevant to the present case, were present:

On the other hand, the Court has generally been prepared to find that there was a positive obligation on the part of the member State to grant family reunification when several of the following circumstances, not all of which are relevant to the present case, were cumulatively present:

However, as indicated previously, existing case-law concerned the more general question whether a refusal to grant family reunification in a given case was in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention. The particular immigration status of the persons requesting it — in particular their rights as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection — and the temporary nature of any refusal due to the existence of a statutory waiting period of a given length, were not at issue.

In addition to asserting substantive requirements regarding family reunification under Article 8 as set out above, the Court has also affirmed certain procedural requirements pertaining to the processing of such requests.

In Tanda-Muzinga and Mugenzi (cited above) the applicants had been granted residence in France as refugees under the UN Refugee Convention. Subsequently, they were granted family reunification with their family members who had been residing abroad. However, the issuing of visas was not automatic. Thus, the applicants had to obtain the visas themselves. In Tanda-Muzinga it took three years and five months, and in Mugenzi, this process lasted for six years. The Court found a violation on the grounds that the national decision-making process did not offer the guarantees of flexibility, promptness and effectiveness required in order to secure the right to respect for family life under Article 8. The Court reiterated ‘that the family unity is an essential right of refugees and that family reunion is an essential element in enabling persons who have fled persecution to resume a normal life’ and ‘that there exists a consensus at international and European level on the need for refugees to benefit from a family reunification procedure that is more favourable than that foreseen for other aliens’ (see Tanda-Muzinga, § 75 …

Similarly, in Senigo Longue and Others v. France (cited above) the applicant had lived lawfully in France since October 2005 as a result of family reunification with her spouse. In May 2007 she had requested family reunification with her two children who had remained in Cameroon. In connection with the examination of an application for family reunification, for more than four years the French authorities had doubted the applicant's maternal relationship with the two children. The Court found such a period ‘far too long, particularly considering the best interests of the children’ and that ‘the decision-making process did not sufficiently safeguard the flexibility, speed and efficiency required to observe the applicants’ right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention.'

The margin of appreciation to be accorded to the competent national authorities will vary in the light of the nature of the issues and the seriousness of the interests at stake (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 211, 10 September 2019). Since the Court has not previously been called on to consider whether, and to what extent, the imposition of a statutory waiting period for granting family reunification to beneficiaries of subsidiary and temporary protection is compatible with Article 8, the Court finds it pertinent, from the outset, to consider the scope of the margin of appreciation available to the State when taking policy decisions of the kind at issue. A series of factors come into play.

The present case concerns the deferral for three years of the applicant's right to be granted family reunification with his wife in Syria. She had not previously resided in Denmark. Therefore, this case is to be seen as one involving an allegation of failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 67; Gül v. Switzerland, cited above, § 38; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 38, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 100–105, and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 221, 13 December 2016).

Thus, the crux of the matter is whether the Danish authorities, on 16 September 2016, when refusing the applicant's request for family reunion, owing to the three-year waiting period, struck a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. The applicant had an interest in being reunited with his wife as soon as possible, whereas the Danish State had an interest in controlling immigration as a means of serving the general interests of the economic wellbeing of the country, and of ensuring the effective integration of those granted protection with a view to preserving social cohesion. However, on the latter point, it should be borne in mind that family reunification may also favour preserving social cohesion and facilitate integration. The Court also notes that the granting of family reunification does not in itself change the nature and legal basis of the stay in Denmark for beneficiaries of temporary protection, which still remains temporary.