Human mobility and the right to family reunion

Doc. 10581

17 June 2005

Human mobility and the right to family reunion

Recommendation 1686 (2004)

Reply from the Committee of Ministers

adopted at the 930^th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (15 June 2005)

1. The Committee of Ministers welcomes Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1686 (2004) on human mobility and the right to family reunion, which it has transmitted to the member states’ governments. Several issues raised in the recommendation have already been addressed in various Committee of Ministers’ recommendations, such as Recommendation No. R (99) 23 on family reunion for refugees and other persons in need of international protection, Recommendation No. R (99) 12 on the return of rejected asylum seekers and Recommendation Rec(2002)4 on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification. The Committee of Ministers has received comments on the Recommendation from the European Committee on Migration (CDMG), the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) and the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter (see Appendices 1 to 3).

2. As regards the monitoring of compliance by member states with international legal instruments regarding family reunion, and in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant Committee of Ministers’ recommendations, the Committee of Ministers recalls that compliance with the Convention is monitored by the European Court of Human Rights and that the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of the judgments of the Court. It also recalls that an explicit right to family reunion for migrant workers is contained in the European Social Charter,¹ which provides for a monitoring mechanism based on national reports and a system of collective complaints. Moreover, the Committee of Ministers has requested CAHAR to send a questionnaire to its members on the implementation of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 on family reunion for refugees and other persons in need of international protection, with a view to monitoring developments in this field.

3. As regards the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation that proposals be drawn up for the harmonisation and implementation of family reunion policies in member states and for a common definition of the family unit, the Committee of Ministers considers that important legal and practical differences in member states in this field, as well as the adoption on 22 September 2003 of European Union Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification render unlikely an agreement on common principles or standards other than those incorporated in the Council of Europe’s existing instruments, in particular Recommendation No. R (99) 23. It would furthermore like to underline that this Recommendation is of particular relevance to the issues raised under paragraph 12 iii (a, b, c, d, e, f and j) of the Assembly’s recommendation.

4. The Committee of Ministers recalls that Recommendation Rec(2002)4, which regulates the situation of persons already admitted for family reunion, includes an open definition of the term “family member”. Recommendation No. R (99) 23 contains the following definition: “Members of the family of the refugee or other person in need of international protection covered by this recommendation are the spouse, dependent minor children and, according to domestic legislation or practice, other relatives”, similar to that contained in the appendix to the revised European Social Charter, which defines the family of a migrant worker as “at least the worker’s spouse and unmarried children as long as they are considered to be minors by the receiving state and are dependant on the migrant worker”, leaving member states to define the “family” according to domestic legislation and practice. The Committee of Ministers considers that these definitions, which allow member states to extend the protection offered by the instruments in question to persons other than the those described traditionally as “family members” do not need to be reviewed.

5. The Committee of Ministers recalls that, through its Recommendation No. R (99) 23, it has already called upon member states to promote family reunion, not only for persons to whom refugee status has been granted but also, more generally and as indicated in the title of the Recommendation itself, for “other persons in need of international protection”. Even more explicitly, paragraph 6 of Recommendation Rec(2001)18 of the Committee of Ministers on subsidiary protection states that: “For family reunion of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, the provisions of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 on family reunion for refugees and other persons in need of international protection apply”. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers has recommended that persons benefiting from temporary protection, i.e. persons benefiting from a practical measure which, although limited in time, guarantees international protection in case of massive and sudden influx, should also, where appropriate, be covered by Recommendation No. R (99) 23.²

6. As regards the Assembly’s recommendation that reasons should be given for a refusal to grant an application for family reunion and that it should be possible to appeal against such a decision before an independent body, the Committee of Ministers would once again like to draw attention to its Recommendation No. R (99) 23 which provides that where applications for family reunion by refugees and other persons in need of international protection are rejected, independent and impartial review of such decisions should be available. It agrees with the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter that this could be a general rule, applicable not only to refugees.

7. The Committee of Ministers shares the view of the Assembly that conditions in respect of financial guarantees, health insurance and housing, should not lead to discrimination of women migrants and refugees. It refers to the comments made by CAHAR to the effect that where possible and appropriate a more favourable regime in respect of conditions of financial resources, health insurance and housing should apply to refugees with regard to their application for family reunion. It notes that Article 12 of European Union Council Directive 2003/86/EC also provides for such a derogatory regime. The Committee of Ministers furthermore recalls that conditions imposed on applicants for family reunion should not contravene the right to respect for family life as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.

8. The Committee of Ministers would like to recall paragraph 4 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 according to which: “Member states should deal with applications for family reunion from refugees and other persons in need of international protection in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. In order to verify family links, member states should primarily rely on available documents provided by the applicant, by competent humanitarian agencies or in any other way. The absence of such documents should not per se be considered as an impediment to the application and member states may request the applicants to provide evidence of existing family links in other ways”. Like CAHAR it has reservations as regards facilitating family reunion before the completion of the refugee status determination process, but underlines the importance of rapid processing of applications. It also recalls that the best interest of the child shall remain a primary consideration and that the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights must be taken into account.

9. The Committee of Ministers recalls that paragraph 1 of Recommendation No. R (99) 12 of the Committee of Ministers on the return of rejected asylum seekers already refers to the obligation on member states not to return refugees in violation of their right to respect for family and/or private life. Such an obligation is also recalled, with respect to all categories of irregular migrants, in Guideline 2.2 of the Twenty Guidelines on forced return recently adopted by the Committee of Ministers. As regards lawfully resident migrants and refugees, it refers to the comments made by the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter. Finally, the Committee of ministers recalls that a safeguard is provided by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which implies the obligation not to expel a person who faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

10. With respect to the question of autonomous residence permits for reunited family members, the Committee of Ministers recalls that its Recommendation Rec(2002)4 deals with the granting of an autonomous residence permit to adult family members after a certain period of legal residence, independent of that of the principal. In case of divorce, separation or death of the principal, a family member having been legally resident for at least one year may apply for an autonomous residence permit. Member states will give due consideration to such applications, giving primary consideration the best interests of any children concerned in their decisions.

11. With respect to access to work for joining family members, the Committee of Ministers recalls that as far as refugees are concerned, paragraph 3 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 incorporates the principle of equality of rights and entitlements between joining family members and the principal right-holder. This also applies to access to the labour market. The Committee of Ministers also recalls that Recommendation Rec(2002)4 provides as a general principle that family members should enjoy treatment equal to principals as concerns access to employment. The Committee of Experts on Integration and Diversity (MG-ID) decided, in 2004, to work on a draft recommendation on facilitating access of legally residing migrants and persons of immigrant origin to the labour market. The work on this recommendation will be carried out this year by the Committee of Experts on Access of Migrants to Employment (MG-R-EM), which in this context will examine proposals for measures aimed at integrating immigrants admitted for the purpose of family reunification.

12. Like the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers is concerned about the situation of spouses in reunited families that are victims of violence or forced marriage. It invites member states to take measures to ensure that they are treated in a fair and humane manner.

13. The Committee of Ministers particularly welcomes the interest of the Parliamentary Assembly in the integration of the reunited families of migrants. It agrees with the Assembly that it is important that general and/or special programmes be conceived for this purpose. It wishes to draw attention to work of the Committee of Experts on Children of Migrants (MG-EN), set up in 2004 by the CDMG, in this area. Integration of newly-arrived children (including those who benefited from family reunification procedures) into education systems has been identified by this committee as a priority. The work on this issue will be continued this year by the Committee of Experts on the Integration of Migrant Children (MG-R-IE).

Appendix 1 to the reply

Opinion of the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1686 (2004) on human mobility and the right to family reunion

a. The European Committee on Migration (CDMG) welcomes the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly to the subject of human mobility and family reunion. It recalls that the Committee of Ministers has adopted Recommendation Rec(2002)4 on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification. This recommendation includes provisions for residence status of family members, their access to labour market, protection against expulsion, free movement and political participation.

b. The CDMG agrees that the term 'family members' should, when possible, be broadly interpreted to include 'de facto family members'. Indeed, Recommendation Rec(2002)4 includes an open definition of the term 'family member'. CDMG invites member states to apply this definition in national policies and practice.

c. The CDMG also wishes to draw attention to Article 12 of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers which makes provisions for family reunification of legally employed migrants. Unfortunately, the convention has currently only been ratified by eight countries. Six other countries have signed the convention. The CDMG encourages member states to consider signing the convention and undertakes itself activities aimed at the promotion of the convention.

d. The CDMG particularly welcomes the interest of the Parliamentary Assembly to the integration of the reunited families of migrants (paragraph 12.m). It wishes to stress that this particular issue is of paramount importance for the whole subject of migration. CDMG wishes to draw attention to its work in this area. In particular, the Committee of Experts on Children of Migrants (MG-EN) was set up in 2004. Integration of newly-arrived children (including those who benefited from family reunification procedures) into education system was identified by the Committee MG-EN among the priorities. The work on this issue will be continued this year by the Committee of Experts on the Integration of Migrant Children (MG-R-IE).

e. The CDMG also recalls that the Committee of Experts on Integration and Diversity (MG-ID) decided, in 2004, to work on a draft recommendation on facilitating access of legally residing migrants and persons of immigrant origin to the labour market. The work on this recommendation will be carried out this year by the Committee of Experts on Access of Migrants to Employment (MG-R-EM). The proposals for the recommendation to be considered by the Committee MG-R-EM include measures aimed at integrating persons who arrived following family reunification procedure.

Appendix 2 to the reply

Opinion of the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1686 (2004) on human mobility and the right to family reunion

1. The Governmental Committee takes note of Recommendation 1686 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly with interest and is grateful for the opportunity given to it to formulate its comments on it. The Governmental Committee is pleased to note the interest shown by the Parliamentary Assembly in the European Social Charter and welcomes this initiative.

2. The Governmental Committee also takes this opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the protection of social rights and to recall the indivisible nature of human rights – civil, political, social, economic and cultural. The subject of Recommendation 1686 (2004), human mobility and the right to family reunion, which is both guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter testifies to this indivisibility.

3. Great attention was paid by the Governmental Committee to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly contained in paragraph 12 of Recommendation 1686 (2004).

4. The recommendations in paragraph 12i call inter alia for an increase in the monitoring of compliance by member states with international legal instruments with regard to family reunion and in particular compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers in this field. The Governmental Committee expresses its agreement to this particular aspect of the recommendation, but wishes to recall the explicit right to family reunion contained in the Charter in both its 1961 version and its revised version of 1996. Efforts to ensure that the Charter in its revised version is ratified by all the Council of Europe's member states and that Article 19 paragraph 6 is accepted and properly applied by all member states would constitute an active contribution toward implementing the recommendation’s principles.

5. The recommendation in paragraph 12.ii to have proposals drawn up for the harmonisation and implementation of family reunion policies in member states, and the laying down of a common definition of the family unit, constitute without doubt desirable goals towards shaping and developing further, general principles on the right to family reunion.

6. Whilst expressing in principle its agreement with the general aims of the recommendations, contained in paragraphs 12.i and 12.ii, the Governmental Committee submits the following observations with regard to paragraph 12.iii of Recommendation 1686 (2004), which merit specific attention:

7. First, the Governmental Committee recalls Article 19, paragraph 6 of the revised European Social Charter, relevant in this context, and which reads as follows:

“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right of migrant workers and their families to protection and assistance in the territory of any other Party, the Parties undertake to facilitate as far as possible the reunion of the family of a foreign worker permitted to establish himself in the territory”.

8. For the purpose of Article 19, paragraph 6, the right to family reunion is afforded to a migrant worker, who is:

“a person who is a national of a Contracting Party to the Charter and who is lawfully resident and working regularly within the territory of another Contracting Party”.

9. For the purposes of Article 19, paragraph 6, a family of a foreign worker permitted to be re-joined with him/her is understood to mean:

“at least the worker’s spouse and unmarried children, as long as the latter are considered to be minors by the receiving State and are dependent on the migrant worker”.

10. The Governmental Committee points out that the rights under the Charter must be ensured to men and women without distinction.

11. Seen against this legal background, and recalling the interpretation given by the European Committee of Social Rights in particular to Article 19 (paragraph 6), the observations with regard to paragraph 12.iii of Recommendation 1686 (2004) are as follows:

a. The Governmental Committee welcomes the application, where possible and appropriate, of a broad interpretation of the concept of family. In this regard, it refers to the clear definition of the ‘family of a foreign worker’ contained in the appendix to Article 19, paragraph 6, of the Charter, which could serve as an example for member states. The ‘family of a foreign worker’ should include at least the ‘spouse’, being the partner in marriage and ‘unmarried children who are dependent on the migrant worker’. No distinction may be made between children born within and those born out of wedlock or between children in single or joint custody. The Governmental Committee wishes to point out that the notion ‘at least’ in the definition leaves open the possibility for member states to interpret ‘family’ according to domestic legislation and practice. Having said this, taking into account the present stage of international law, as well as considerations of national cultures of member states, to include explicitly in a definition of ‘family’, non-married partners, and even more so, same-sex partners, will most probably be met with much controversy, reflecting particularly these divers cultures in member states.

b. As regards vulnerable groups, the Governmental Committee supports the special measures envisaged for refugees. It stresses however, that persons benefiting from subsidiary protection (asylum seekers) do not have an explicit right to family reunion, unless they fall under the definition of ‘migrant worker’. Likewise, young migrants as referred to in Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1596 (2003) may also only exercise the right to family reunion if they fall under said definition. Finally, the recommendation to bring the situation of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, whose application has been rejected, into conformity with the law for humanitarian reasons would be met with much reluctance from member states.

c. The Governmental Committee agrees that conditions in respect of financial guarantees, health insurance and housing, should not lead to discrimination of women migrants and refugees. In fact, proper application of case law of the European Committee on Social Rights under Article 19, paragraph 6, would lead to conditions which are not restrictive and limit waiting periods for up to 12 months. Furthermore, limiting the grounds for rejection to those conditions that are instrumental in defining the fulfilment of the conditions for family reunification is to be welcomed. Although, the Charter does not contain this explicit right, the Governmental Committee is in agreement with the recommendation that any refusal of the right to family reunion be motivated and be appealable before an independent body.

d. The Governmental Committee welcomes the recommendation not to return lawfully resident migrants and refugees to their countries of origin after serving sentences for criminal behaviour and not to reject applications for family reunion solely on the grounds that the applicant has a criminal record. Indeed, the Charter provides no basis for such measures, unless the migrant worker concerned endangers national security or offends against public interest or morality. In the latter case, it is important to weigh the criminal offence against the period of legal stay and the decision to expel the migrant worker should take into consideration inter alia the ties with the family remaining in the territory of the Party. Refugees, as is stated in the appendix to the Charter, should in all cases be afforded treatment as favourable as possible, in any case not less favourable than under the obligations accepted by the Party under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol and under any other existing international instruments applicable to said persons.

e. Lastly, programmes for the integration of reunited families should be encouraged. In this respect, the Governmental Committee recalls Article 19, paragraph 11, of the Charter which provides for the promotion and facilitation of the teaching of (one of) the national language(s) of the receiving state to migrant workers, and his/her family members.

12. Should the Committee of Ministers wish to examine the various proposals, the Governmental Committee is ready to be involved in any such discussions.

Appendix 3 to the reply

Comments by the Bureau of the Ad hoc committee of experts on legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1686 (2004) on human mobility and the right to family reunion

At its 909th meeting (15 December 2004, item 3.1), the Committee of Ministers decided to communicate, inter alia, to the Ad hoc committee of experts on legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) for information and possible comments the above-mentioned Recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly. The CAHAR adopted the following comments by means of a written consultation procedure initiated by its Bureau on 28 April 2005.

The CAHAR took note of Recommendation 1686 (2004) and is grateful to the Parliamentary Assembly for its continuous attention to the issue of family reunion, and in particular to the right to family reunion for refugees in Europe.

The CAHAR would first like to observe that several issues raised in the Parliamentary Assembly’s Recommendation have already been addressed in various Committee of Ministers’ recommendations such as Recommendation No. R (99) 23 on family reunion for refugees and other persons in need of international protection, Recommendation No. R (99) 12 on the return of rejected asylum seekers and Recommendation Rec(2002)4 on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification. Recommendation No. R (99) 23 is of particular relevance with respect to issues raised under paragraph 12.iii, lit a., b., c., d., e., f. and j. (see below).

With regard to paragraph 12.i of the Recommendation 1686 (2004) (“increased monitoring”), the CAHAR recalls Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which provides for the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This supervisory function applies to any final judgment, including those concerned with Article 8 of the ECHR which may, under certain circumstances, impose on a state the obligation to admit to its territory relatives of recognised refugees or of persons in need of international protection. As far as reinforcing the monitoring of compliance by member states with “…relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers” is concerned, the CAHAR would like to recall that it has the possibility to launch a questionnaire to its members on the implementation of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 with a view to follow the developments in this field and to include the item of “family reunion” on the agenda of its next plenary meeting (November 2005). This could be done if the Committee of Ministers deems it necessary.

With regard to paragraph 12.ii of Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1686 (2004) (“harmonisation and implementation of policies in member states and common definition of the family unit"), the CAHAR would like to inform the Committee of Ministers of its willingness to contribute to the work of any future body or forum that the Committee of Ministers may wish to set up with a view to drawing up “proposals for the harmonisation and implementation of family reunion policies in member states and to lay down a definition of the family unit and rules regarding specific circumstances based on the recommendations set out in sub-paragraph 12.iii.” However, due to the important legal and practical differences that exist between member states in this field, as well as to the adoption on 22 September 2003 of European Union Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, the CAHAR finds it unlikely that this body/forum would, in a reasonable time, be able to agree upon common principles or standards that would differ from those incorporated in the existing instruments of the Council of Europe, in particular Recommendation No. R (99) 23.

With regard to paragraph 12.iii, the following comments, mainly inspired by Recommendation No. R (99) 23, could be made with respect to:

- Lit a. (interpretation of the concept of family): The CAHAR believes that neither state practice nor the most recent instruments in this field, such as European Union Council Directive 2003/86/EC, go as far as to include in the interpretation of the concept of family, for family reunion purposes, the members of the family identified under lit a. It wishes to recall the definition of the concept of family provided under paragraph 2 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23: “Members of the family of the refugee or other person in need of international protection covered by this recommendation are the spouse, dependent minor children and, according to domestic legislation or practice, other relatives”.

- Lit b. (beneficiary of subsidiary protection): The CAHAR would like to recall that, through its Recommendation No. R (99) 23, the Committee of Ministers has already called upon member states to promote family reunion not only for persons to whom refugee status has been granted but also, more generally and as indicated in the title of the recommendation itself, for other persons in need of international protection. Even more explicitly, paragraph 6 of Recommendation Rec(2001)18 of the Committee of Ministers on subsidiary protection states that: “For family reunion of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, the provisions of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 on family reunion for refugees and other persons in need of international protection apply”. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended that persons benefiting from temporary protection, i.e. persons benefiting from a practical measure which, although limited in time, guarantees international protection provided in case of massive and sudden influx, should also, where appropriate, be covered by Recommendation No. R (99) 23 (see paragraph 4 of Recommendation Rec(2000)9 on temporary protection).

- Lit c. (reasons for refusal and appeal): The CAHAR would like to draw attention to the last sentence of paragraph 4 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 which provides that: “Where applications for family reunion by such persons are rejected, independent and impartial review of such decisions should be available”.

- Lit d. (less strict conditions for refugees): The CAHAR is of the opinion that no stricter conditions and, where possible and appropriate, a more favourable regime in respect of conditions of financial resources, health insurance and housing should apply to refugees with regard to their application for family reunion. It notes that Article 12 of European Union Council Directive 2003/86/EC also provides for such a derogatory regime. It recalls that conditions imposed on applicants for family reunion should not contravene with the right to respect for family life as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.

- Lit e. (harmonisation and maximum length of procedures, non provision of documents that are not instrumental) and Lit f. (positive and humane spirit): The CAHAR would like to recall paragraph 4 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 according to which: “Member states should deal with applications for family reunion from refugees and other persons in need of international protection in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. In order to verify family links, member states should primarily rely on available documents provided by the applicant, by competent humanitarian agencies or in any other way. The absence of such documents should not per se be considered as an impediment to the application and member states may request the applicants to provide evidence of existing family links in other ways”.

- Lit g. (facilitate family reunion before recognition of refugee status): The CAHAR expresses reservations as regards facilitating family reunion before the completion of the refugee status determination process. The CAHAR considers that if member states are capable of processing asylum applications in a rapid manner this would lead to the result that family reunion for persons who have been recognised as being in need of international protection could take place more speedily. However, the CAHAR recalls that the best interest of the child shall remain a primary consideration in the context of family reunion and that the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in this respect must also be taken into account.

- Lit h. (not to return in violation of Article 8 ECHR); Lit i. (not to return/not to reject application on the basis of criminal records): The CAHAR recalls that paragraph 1 of Recommendation No. R (99) 12 of the Committee of Ministers on the return of rejected asylum seekers already refers to the obligation on member states not to return refugees in violation of their right to respect for family and/or private life. Such obligation is also recalled, with respect to all categories of irregular migrants, in Guideline 2.2 of the Twenty Guidelines on forced return, adopted by the CAHAR at its 55th meeting.

- Lit j. (legal status and autonomous residence permits for members of reunited family): The CAHAR would like to recall paragraph 3 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23 which provides that: “The rights and entitlements to be granted by member states to joining family members should in principle be the same as those accorded to their family member who is a refugee or another person in need of international protection, respectively”. With respect to the issuing of autonomous residence permits for the members of the reunited family, the CAHAR shares the Parliamentary Assembly’s view that the issuing of such permits would constitute a form of protection in the event of divorce, death or expulsion of the principal right-holder. As such, the CAHAR is of the opinion that member states could be encouraged to issue these permit to the spouse, dependent minor children and, according to domestic legislation or practice, other relatives of the refugee or other person in need of international protection within a maximum length of time following their arrival in the host state. In this regard, the CAHAR recalls paragraph III of Recommendation Rec(2002)4 of the Committee of Ministers on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification which states that : “1. After a period of four years of legal residence, adult family members should be granted an autonomous residence permit independent of that of the principal 2. In the case of divorce, separation or death of the principal, a family member having been legally resident for at least one year may apply for an autonomous residence permit. Member states will give due consideration to such applications. In their decisions, the best interests of the children concerned shall be a primary consideration.”

- Lit k. (abusive relationship): While recalling that Article 3 ECHR implies the obligation not to expel a person who faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the CAHAR believes that cases of abusive relationships within reunited families should lead to investigation and prosecution by the competent national authorities in accordance with domestic legislation.

- Lit l. (access to work): The CAHAR recalls that paragraph 3 of Recommendation No. R (99) 23, which incorporates the principle of equality of rights and entitlements between joining family members and the principal right-holder, also applies regarding access to the labour market.

¹ Both in the 1961 version and in the revised version of 1996.

² See paragraph 4 of Recommendation Rec(2000)9 on temporary protection.