Background
A Yemeni refugee living in the Netherlands had three wives under marriages contracted in Yemen and 13 children. After receiving asylum, he sought family reunification for his first wife and all 13 children, who were then living in Türkiye. Dutch authorities granted residence permits to his first wife and their eight children, but refused permits for the five children born to his second and third wives.
The refusal relied on Dutch rules implementing the EU Family Reunification Directive’s polygamy exception. Authorities invited the applicant to choose one marriage for recognition under Dutch law; he instead maintained all three marriages. They nevertheless conducted an individual assessment, finding that the five children lived with their mothers in Türkiye, had temporary protection documents and access to schooling and healthcare, and could maintain contact with their father remotely and through visits. Dutch courts upheld the refusal.
The Court’s Holding
Unanimously, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 8. Although the Netherlands did not recognise the applicant’s polygamous marriages, the Court accepted that he had family life with his five children. The question was therefore whether the Netherlands had a positive obligation to admit them for family reunification.
The Court found that States have a wide margin of appreciation in this setting. There was a strong European consensus prohibiting polygamy, and the applicant had maintained all three marriages despite knowing the resulting immigration difficulties. The Dutch authorities had individually weighed the children’s interests and the family’s circumstances against the public-order interest in enforcing the ban on polygamy. Their conclusion struck a fair balance.
Key Takeaways
- Family life under Article 8 can exist between a father and children born of polygamous marriages, even where those marriages are not recognised domestically.
- European States have a wide margin of appreciation over family reunification involving children born of polygamous marriages.
- The children’s interests carry significant weight but do not automatically require admission where authorities have made an individualised assessment.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that Article 8 does not require Council of Europe States to facilitate family reunification arrangements that would conflict with a domestic ban on polygamy. It also underscores that a polygamy-based refusal cannot rest on a blanket rule alone: authorities must examine the individual circumstances, including the children’s welfare and the practical possibility of maintaining family life elsewhere.