Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

entitled to rely on any change in circumstances that have occurred after the adoption of the decision which may have a significant bearing on the assessment of the decision. Celaj, C-290/14 The case deals with the relationship between return policy and criminal law .The CJEU clarified, whether the RD precludes national legislation providing for the imprisonment of an illegally staying third-country national who, following return, re-entered the territory of the State in breach of an entry ban and without being subject to return procedures. The CJEU ruled that the RD does not preclude imposing a prison sentence in such cases. Affum, C-47/15 The case concerns the question whether a third-country national is illegally staying also when only transiting to reach another Member State. Can a third-country national who entered illegally and to whom return procedures have not been applied, be subject to a sentence of imprisonment? Can this be done when the person can be taken back by another Member State on the basis of a bilateral agreement? The CJEU ruled that a third- country national who illegally crossed an internal border and does not fulfil the conditions for entry and stay falls within the scope of the RD. The RD precludes national legislation allowing the imprisonment of third-country nationals who illegally crossed the internal border and were illegally staying and were not subject to return procedures. This is also the case if the irregular migrant can be taken back by another EU State. 5.3.3 Family reunification directive Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification Even if the Family Reunification Directive is not a part of the CEAS instruments package, its application is closely related with the common asylum policy and its human rights dimension. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has said that family reunification is an essential human right which enables refugees to resume a normal life and is crucial for their integration in the host country in intervention in the case of Dabo v. Sweden , which concerns the refusal to grant family reunification to the family members of a person with refugee status in Sweden (see Application No. 12510/18 The CJEU interpreted Article 11(2) of the Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/ EC) in a situation where an application for family reunification was lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection. Since Netherlands law has made the Directive also applicable to persons with subsidiary protection status, Article 11 of the Directive must be applied to the case at issue. According to the CJEU, authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor, including the difficulties they faced during and after their flight from their country. A. and S. v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, C-550/16 The CJEU ruled that Article 2(f ) of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the Dabo v. Sweden ). This approach is also reflected in CJEU case law. E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, C-635/17

107