Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
8 October 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Immigration policy – Right to family reunification – Directive 2003/86/EC – Article 10(3)(a) – Right of a refugee to family reunification with his or her parents – Concept of ‘unaccompanied minor’ – Application for family reunification for parents with a minor refugee who has reached the age of majority during the asylum procedure – Scope of the judgment of 12 April 2018, A and S (C‑550/16, EU:C:2018:248) – Reasonable time limit for lodging that application – Dies a quo – Right to respect for private and family life – Best interests of the child – Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union )
[para_5]In Case C‑571/24,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher Administrative Court, Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany), made by decision of 14 May 2024, received by the Court on 27 August 2024, in the proceedings
[para_7]YO,
CT
[para_9]v
[para_10]Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
[para_11]in the presence of:
[para_12]Kreis Bergstraße,
[para_13]THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),
[para_14]composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Chamber, R. Frendo, N. Jääskinen, Mr Condinanzi (Rapporteur) and A. Kornezov, Judges,
[para_15]Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,
[para_16]Registrar: F. Cathagne, Administrator,
[para_17]having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 18 September 2025,
[para_18]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_19]– CT and YO, by A. Feßenbecker, Rechtsanwältin,
[para_20]– the German Government, by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents,
[para_21]– the European Commission, by J. Hottiaux and J. Vondung, acting as Agents,
[para_22]after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 October 2025,
[para_23]gives the following
Judgment
[para_25]1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
[para_26]2 The request has been made in proceedings between YO and CT, Syrian nationals residing in Türkiye, and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), concerning the latter’s rejection of their applications for residence permits for the purposes of family reunification with their son, who has been granted refugee status in Germany.
Legal context
European Union law
3 Under recitals 2 and 8 of Directive 2003/86:
[para_30]‘(2) Measures concerning family reunification should be adopted in conformity with the obligation to protect the family and respect family life enshrined in many instruments of international law. This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular in Article 8 of the [European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950,] and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [‘the Charter’].
[para_31]…
[para_32](8) Special attention should be paid to the situation of refugees on account of the reasons which obliged them to flee their country and prevent them from leading a normal family life there. More favourable conditions should therefore be laid down for the exercise of their right to family reunification.’
4 Article 1 of that directive reads as follows:
[para_34]‘The purpose of this Directive is to determine the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by third country nationals residing lawfully in the territory of the Member States.’
5 Under Article 2(f) of that directive:
[para_36]‘For the purposes of this Directive:
[para_37]…
[para_38](f) “unaccompanied minor” means third country nationals or stateless persons below the age of [18], who arrive on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible by law or custom, and for as long as they are not effectively taken into the care of such a person, or minors who are left unaccompanied after they entered the territory of the Member States.’
6 Article 4 of that directive provides:
[para_40]‘1. The Member States shall authorise the entry and residence, pursuant to this Directive and subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Chapter IV, as well as in Article 16, of the following family members:
[para_41]…
(b) the minor children of the sponsor and of his/her spouse …
[para_43]…
[para_44]The minor children referred to in this Article must be below the age of majority set by the law of the Member State concerned and must not be married.
[para_45]…
[para_46]2. The Member States may, by law or regulation, authorise the entry and residence, pursuant to this Directive and subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Chapter IV, of the following family members:
[para_47](a) first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line of the sponsor or his or her spouse, where they are dependent on them and do not enjoy proper family support in the country of origin;
[para_48]…’
7 Article 5 of Directive 2003/86 provides:
[para_50]‘1. Member States shall determine whether, in order to exercise the right to family reunification, an application for entry and residence shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned either by the sponsor or by the family member or members.
[para_51]…
[para_52]5. When examining an application, the Member States shall have due regard to the best interests of minor children.’
[para_53]8 Article 7(1) of that directive provides that Member States may require the person submitting the application for family reunification to provide evidence that the sponsor has accommodation, health insurance and resources which satisfy, respectively, the requirements set out in that provision.
9 Article 10(3) of that directive states:
[para_55]‘If the refugee is an unaccompanied minor, the Member States:
[para_56](a) shall authorise the entry and residence for the purposes of family reunification of his/her first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line without applying the conditions laid down in Article 4(2)(a);
[para_57]…’
10 Under Article 12(1) of that directive:
[para_59]‘By way of derogation from Article 7, the Member States shall not require the refugee and/or family member(s) to provide, in respect of applications concerning those family members referred to in Article 4(1), the evidence that the refugee fulfils the requirements set out in Article 7.
[para_60]Without prejudice to international obligations, where family reunification is possible in a third country with which the sponsor and/or family member has special links, Member States may require provision of the evidence referred to in the first subparagraph.
[para_61]Member States may require the refugee to meet the conditions referred to in Article 7(1) if the application for family reunification is not submitted within a period of three months after the granting of the refugee status.’
11 Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2003/86 reads as follows:
[para_63]‘Member States may reject an application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification, or, if appropriate, withdraw or refuse to renew a family member’s residence permit, in the following circumstances:
[para_64](a) where the conditions laid down by this Directive are not or are no longer satisfied.
[para_65]…’
German law
[para_67]12 The Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet (Law on the Residence, Employment and Integration of Foreign Nationals in the Federal Territory), in the version published on 25 February 2008 (BGBl. 2008 I, p. 162), as amended by the Law of 8 May 2024 (BGBl. I, No 152) (‘the AufenthG’), provides in Paragraph 6(3):
[para_68]‘Longer stays in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany (the Federal Republic) shall require a visa for that territory (a national visa) which shall be issued prior to entry into the Federal Republic. It shall be issued in accordance with the provisions applicable to the [temporary] residence permit, the EU Blue Card, the ICT [(Intra-Corporate Transfer)] Card, the [permanent] settlement permit and the EU long-term residence permit. …’
[para_69]13 Paragraph 25 of the AufenthG, entitled ‘Residence on humanitarian grounds’, states in subparagraph 2:
[para_70]‘A temporary residence permit is issued to a foreign national when the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge [(Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Germany)] has recognised them as a refugee within the meaning of Paragraph 3(1) of the Asylgesetz [(Law on asylum)] or as being entitled to subsidiary protection within the meaning of Paragraph 4(1) of the Law on asylum. …’
[para_71]14 Paragraph 36 of the AufenthG, entitled ‘Family reunification of parents and other family members’, provides:
[para_72]‘(1) … a temporary residence permit shall be issued to the parents of a minor foreign national who holds a temporary residence permit pursuant to … Paragraph 25(2), … where no parent with parental responsibility for the minor is present on German territory.
[para_73](2) A temporary residence permit for the purposes of family reunification may be issued to other family members of a foreign national where this is necessary to avoid undue hardship. …’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_75]15 The son of the applicants in the main proceedings, born on 31 January 1999, entered German territory on 6 August 2015, at the age of 16. Represented by a guardian, he lodged an application for asylum on 3 June 2016, at the age of 17. By decision of 15 May 2017, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees granted him refugee status. At that time, he was 18 years and three months old.
[para_76]16 The applicants in the main proceedings submit that, initially, they did not submit an application for family reunification with their son because, during the asylum proceedings and after he had been granted refugee status, he had been informed on several occasions by his guardian, his lawyer, various authorities responsible for immigration matters and a refugee organisation that, in accordance with the case-law of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), the parents’ right to family reunification with their child recognised as a refugee, under Paragraph 36(1) of the AufenthG, ceased when that child reached the age of majority (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, judgment of 18 April 2013 – 10 C 9/12 – BVerwG:2013:180413U10C9.12.0, paragraph 17 et seq.).
[para_77]17 In its judgment of 12 April 2018, A and S (C‑550/16, EU:C:2018:248) (‘the judgment in A and S ’), the Court held that Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86, read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘minor’, within the meaning of that provision, covers a third-country national or a stateless person who was under 18 years of age at the time of entering the territory of a Member State and of lodging an application for asylum in that State, but who, during the asylum proceedings, reaches the age of majority and is subsequently granted refugee status. The Court clarified, in paragraph 61 of that judgment, that, in such a situation, the application for family reunification made on the basis of Article 10(3)(a) must be lodged within a ‘reasonable period’, namely, in principle, within three months of the date on which the ‘minor’ concerned was declared to have refugee status.
[para_78]18 Having taken note of that judgment, the son of the applicants in the main proceedings requested, by letter dated 24 April 2018, that the national authority responsible for immigration matters, the German Embassy in Türkiye and the German Consulate-General in Istanbul (Türkiye) issue a residence permit to his parents for the purposes of family reunification. He also submitted, as a precautionary measure, an application for restitutio in integrum in respect of the three-month time limit within which, in accordance with the judgment in A and S , an application for family reunification must, in principle, be lodged.
[para_79]19 By letter dated 11 July 2018, the applicants in the main proceedings, for their part, applied to the German Embassy in Ankara (Türkiye) and the German Consulate-General in Istanbul for visas for the purposes of family reunification. On 20 November 2018, they went to the German Consulate-General in Istanbul to submit their application in person.
[para_80]20 By decisions of 10 April 2019, that Consulate-General rejected those applications on the grounds that the right of a refugee’s parents to family reunification exists only until the date on which the refugee reaches the age of majority and that, in any event, the parents had not lodged their application as soon as possible after their son had been granted refugee status.
[para_81]21 On 14 August 2019, the applicants in the main proceedings brought an action against those decisions before the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin, Germany), which dismissed it by a judgment dated 30 March 2021. That court held that the parents’ right to family reunification, under Paragraph 36(1) of the AufenthG, is subject to the condition that their child is a minor on the date of the administrative decision or the judicial decision ruling on the merits. According to that court, that national provision cannot be interpreted otherwise in the context of an interpretation consistent with EU law. Furthermore, the applicants in the main proceedings could not claim the right to family reunification with their son on the basis of Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86, since they had not lodged their application within the three-month time limit laid down, in principle, by the Court in the judgment in A and S . There is no justification for adopting a longer time limit or a deferred starting point for that time limit. That same court stated, on the one hand, that a restitutio in integrum or ‘clemency’ based on force majeure was not applicable in the present case and, on the other hand, that a party which voluntarily refrains from acting in good time on the ground that it considers its application or appeal to be doomed to failure cannot rely on an admissible ground for failure to act.
[para_82]22 The applicants in the main proceedings lodged an appeal against that judgment before the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher Administrative Court, Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany), which is the referring court.
[para_83]23 That court, following the arguments of the applicants in the main proceedings, notes that the applicants cannot be held responsible for failing to comply with the three-month time limit laid down in the judgment in A and S , since, prior to the delivery of that judgment, they could not reasonably have expected an application for family reunification to be successful. At that time, such an application had no prospect of success in the light of the case-law of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) and the resulting decision-making practice of the German authorities, of which the applicants in the main proceedings were aware. Furthermore, the refugee and his parents could not have been aware, prior to the delivery of that judgment, of the existence of that three-month time limit.
[para_84]24 Consequently, the referring court considers that such a time limit cannot be applied, without adjustments, in situations such as that of the applicants in the main proceedings. It therefore wonders whether, in such circumstances, the starting point of that time limit should be set at a date other than that on which refugee status was granted to the minor seeking family reunification – such as 12 April 2018, the date of the judgment in A and S – or whether a longer time limit may be applied. Taking, consequently, the view that several solutions are possible, that court considers that clarification on that point from the Court of Justice is necessary.
[para_85]25 In those circumstances, the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher Administrative Court, Berlin-Brandenburg) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
[para_86]‘(1) Does the time limit of three months from the grant of refugee status, to which, in accordance with the judgment [in A and S ], an application for family reunification made on the basis of Article 10(3)(a) of [Directive 2003/86] must be subject in the case where the sponsor was under 18 years of age at the time when he or she entered the territory of a Member State and applied for asylum in that State but reaches the age of majority during the asylum procedure, apply unchanged even if that time limit had already expired at the time of [that judgment] but the then practice of the [national] authorities and the case-law of the supreme court in such matters in that Member State offered no realistic prospect for a refugee having already reached the age of majority to be able to make a successful application for family reunification?
[para_87](2) If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does that time limit start to run from a later date in such cases or does a longer time limit apply in those circumstances?’
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_89]26 By its two questions, which should be examined together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national, having entered the territory of a Member State as an ‘unaccompanied minor’, has reached the age of majority during the proceedings for the examination of his application for international protection and has been granted refugee status on a date prior to the delivery of the judgment in A and S , the application for family reunification by his or her parents must, in principle, be lodged within three months of the date on which the minor concerned was recognised as a ‘refugee’, as provided for in that judgment, in a situation where, prior to the delivery of that judgment, such an application had, for a refugee who had reached the age of majority, no prospect of success, in the light of the case-law of the higher courts of the Member State concerned and the decision-making practice of the competent national authorities.
[para_90]27 As is apparent from Article 1 thereof, the purpose of Directive 2003/86 is to lay down the conditions under which the right to family reunification enjoyed by third-country nationals lawfully residing in the territory of the Member States is exercised.
[para_91]28 In that regard, as set out in recital 8 of that directive, it provides for more favourable conditions for refugees to exercise that right to family reunification, given that their situation requires special consideration because of the reasons that forced them to flee their country and which prevent them from leading a normal family life there.
[para_92]29 One of those more favourable conditions concerns family reunification with the refugee’s first-degree direct ascendants. As the Court has already held, whilst, under Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2003/86, the possibility of such family reunification is, in principle, left to the discretion of each Member State and subject, in particular, to the condition that the first-degree direct ascendants are dependent on the sponsor and are deprived of the necessary family support in their country of origin, Article 10(3)(a) of that directive provides for an exception to that principle, pursuant to which unaccompanied refugee minors are entitled to such family reunification, which is subject neither to a margin of discretion on the part of the Member States nor to the conditions laid down in Article 4(2)(a). Thus, Article 10(3)(a) imposes a specific positive obligation on Member States, corresponding to a clearly defined right, and is specifically intended to guarantee enhanced protection for those refugees who are ‘unaccompanied minors’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 January 2024, Landeshauptmann von Wien (Family reunification with a minor refugee) , C‑560/20, EU:C:2024:96, paragraphs 33 and 52 and the case-law cited).
[para_93]30 In that regard, in paragraph 64 of the judgment in A and S , the Court has already held that Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86, which defines the concept of ‘unaccompanied minor’, read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or a stateless person who is under 18 years of age at the time of entry into the territory of a Member State and of the lodging of their application for asylum in that State, but who, during the asylum procedure, reaches the age of majority and is subsequently granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of that provision.
[para_94]31 Making the right to family reunification referred to in Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86 contingent upon the moment at which the competent national authority formally adopts the decision recognising the person concerned as a ‘refugee’ and, therefore, on how quickly or slowly the application for international protection is processed by that authority would call into question the effectiveness of that provision and would go against not only the aim of that directive, which is to promote family reunification and to grant in that regard a specific protection to refugees, in particular unaccompanied minors, but also the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty (the judgment in A and S , paragraph 55).
[para_95]32 As regards the time limit within which an application for family reunification with a minor refugee sponsor must be lodged, it is important to note that Directive 2003/86 does not expressly specify the deadline by which a minor refugee may apply to exercise the right to family reunification provided for in Article 10(3)(a) thereof.
[para_96]33 In that context, the Court held, in paragraph 61 of the judgment in A and S , that, in so far as it would be incompatible with the objective of Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86 for a refugee, who had the status of an ‘unaccompanied minor’ at the time of his or her application for asylum but who reached the age of majority during the proceedings relating to that application, to rely on that provision ‘without any time limit’ in order to obtain family reunification, the application for family reunification must be made within a reasonable period. The Court also held that, for the purposes of determining such a reasonable period, the approach adopted by the EU legislature in the similar context of the third subparagraph of Article 12(1) of that directive is indicative, so that it had to be held that the application for family reunification made on the basis of Article 10(3)(a) of that directive must, in principle, in such a situation, be submitted within a period of three months of the date on which the ‘minor’ concerned was declared to have refugee status.
[para_97]34 It thus follows from that judgment, first, that, in such a situation, the application for family reunification must be lodged within a ‘reasonable period’ and that that period begins on the date on which the minor concerned was granted refugee status. Secondly, the aforementioned three-month period serves as a ‘guideline’ for determining what constitutes a reasonable timeframe, meaning that such an application must, ‘in principle’, be lodged within that three-month period. However, that does not preclude the period from being adjusted in specific circumstances.
[para_98]35 It should be noted that the reasonableness of a time limit cannot be assessed by reference to a specific maximum limit determined in the abstract, but must be assessed in each individual case on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 February 2013, Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB , C‑334/12 RX-II, EU:C:2013:134, paragraphs 29 and 33).
[para_99]36 In the present case, the referring court’s doubts relate to the specific circumstances of the main proceedings, which consist, in particular, of the fact that, first, that time limit – which is, in principle, three months – had already expired by the date of the judgment in A and S , and, secondly, prior to that judgment, an application for family reunification lodged by the parents of a refugee who had reached the age of majority during the examination of his asylum application had no prospect of success in the light of the case-law of the higher courts of the Member State concerned and the decision-making practice of the competent national authorities.
[para_100]37 In that regard, it should be noted that, pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Charter, when implementing EU law, Member States are to respect the rights and observe the principles set out in the Charter and are to promote the application thereof, in accordance with their respective competences and whilst respecting the limits of the Union’s competences as conferred on it by the Treaties.
[para_101]38 Thus, in accordance with settled case-law, it is incumbent upon Member States – in particular their courts and the competent national authorities – not only to interpret their national law in a manner consistent with EU law, but also to make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of an instrument of secondary legislation which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the legal order of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 January 2024, Landeshauptmann von Wien (Family reunification with a minor refugee) , C‑560/20, EU:C:2024:96, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
[para_102]39 As the Court has already held, the provisions of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted and applied in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter, as is, moreover, apparent from the wording of recital 2 and Article 5(5) of that directive, which require the Member States to examine applications for family reunification in the interests of the children concerned and with a view to promoting family life (judgment of 30 January 2024, Landeshauptmann von Wien (Family reunification with a minor refugee) , C‑560/20, EU:C:2024:96, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).
[para_103]40 That applies, in particular, to Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86, which is specifically intended to facilitate the family reunification of unaccompanied refugee minors with their parents, in order to guarantee those minors an additional protection on account of their particular vulnerability, and which is therefore of particular importance for the effective respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 7 and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 January 2024, Landeshauptmann von Wien (Family reunification with a minor refugee) , C‑560/20, EU:C:2024:96, paragraph 51).
[para_104]41 Consequently, having regard to the importance of the interests at stake and in order to ensure that unaccompanied refugee minors are reunited with their parents, the competent national authorities and the courts of the Member States called upon to rule on an application for family reunification are required to take into account all the circumstances specific to each case, in order to determine whether the time within which the application was made satisfies the requirement of being reasonable. In particular, it is for them to assess whether such an application, even where it was lodged after the expiry of the time limit – in principle, three months from the date on which the minor was recognised as a ‘refugee’ – may nevertheless be deemed admissible in view of all the specific circumstances put forward by the applicant and characterising the case before them, in particular the reasons for exceeding that time limit and the diligence shown by the sponsor or the members of their family.
[para_105]42 In the present case, it is for the referring court, in the first place, to take into account the fact that the facts of the main proceedings predate the delivery of the judgment in A and S , in which the Court held, for the first time, that an application for family reunification, lodged at a time when the sponsor was classified as an ‘unaccompanied minor’ at the time of lodging his application for asylum but had reached the age of majority during the proceedings relating to that application, must be lodged within a reasonable period, namely, in principle, within three months of the date on which the minor was recognised as a ‘refugee’. Prior to the delivery of that judgment, neither the applicant nor his parents could have been aware of the existence of such a time limit.
[para_106]43 In the second place, it is for that court to take into account the fact that the parents of the applicant for family reunification – who was a minor at the time of lodging his asylum application but had reached the age of majority by the time he was granted refugee status – did not lodge an application for family reunification immediately after that decision on the grounds that he had been informed, in particular by the competent national authorities, that such an application concerning a minor who had reached the age of majority during the asylum proceedings had no prospect of success in the light of the case-law of the higher German courts and the decision-making practice of those authorities – as confirmed, moreover, by the German Government during the proceedings in the present case.
[para_107]44 In the third place, it is for that court to take into account the fact that the son of the applicants in the main proceedings applied for a residence permit for his parents for the purposes of family reunification on 24 April 2018, just twelve days after the judgment in A and S was delivered. Such a circumstance is likely to constitute an indication of the diligence shown by those applicants in exercising their right to family reunification, as well as of their good faith.
[para_108]45 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national, having entered the territory of a Member State as an ‘unaccompanied minor’, has reached the age of majority during the procedure for examining his or her application for international protection and has been granted refugee status on a date prior to the delivery of the judgment in A and S , the application for family reunification by his or her parents must be lodged within a reasonable period from the date on which the minor concerned was recognised as a ‘refugee’. Whether that period is reasonable must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances specific to each case.
Costs
[para_110]46 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_112]Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification,
[para_113]must be interpreted as meaning that where a third-country national, having entered the territory of a Member State as an ‘unaccompanied minor’, has reached the age of majority during the procedure for examining his or her application for international protection and has been granted refugee status on a date prior to the delivery of the judgment of 12 April 2018, A and S (C ‑ 550/16, EU:C:2018:248), the application for family reunification by his or her parents must be lodged within a reasonable period from the date on which the minor concerned was recognised as a ‘refugee’. Whether that period is reasonable must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances specific to each case.
[para_114][Signatures]
[para_115]* Language of the case: German.