A recent judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has set a significant precedent regarding the limits of family reunification across Europe. On 8 September 2026, the Court unanimously ruled in favour of the Netherlands in the case of A.A. v. the Netherlands (Application no. 7481/23), deciding that the Dutch authorities had not violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life) by refusing family reunification permits to five children born into polygamous marriages.

This ruling has profound legal implications for immigration authorities across the European Union, including those in Slovenia. It confirms that national and European prohibitions on polygamy are legitimate grounds for limiting the right to cross-border family reunification.

Background of the Case: A.A. v. the Netherlands

The applicant is a 56-year-old Yemeni national who entered the Netherlands in October 2018 and was subsequently granted asylum and residence status. Before arriving in Europe, he had entered into polygamous marriages with three women in Yemen, with whom he had a total of 13 children: eight with his first wife, three with his second and two with his third.

In July 2019, the applicant submitted an application to the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) seeking provisional leave to remain for the purpose of family reunification for his first wife and all 13 children, who were residing in Türkiye under temporary protection identification cards (kimlik).

The Dutch authorities offered the applicant an option under domestic rules: to designate which single marriage he wished to have legally recognized under Dutch law. When the applicant maintained that all three marriages were valid and refused to dissolve his secondary marriages, the Dutch IND:

  1. Approved family reunification for his first wife and the eight children born to that marriage.
  2. Denied residence permits for the remaining five minor children born of his second and third wives.

The refusal was grounded in Section 3.16 of the Dutch Aliens Decree 2000, which transposes Article 4(4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification (the EU Family Reunification Directive), barring the entry of family members where it would facilitate or perpetuate a polygamous household contrary to domestic public order.

The Legal Challenge and Domestic Appeals

The father contested the decision through domestic legal remedies up to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State), the highest administrative court in the Netherlands.

He argued that:

  • His application did not seek residence for the second and third wives, but solely for his minor biological children.
  • Polygamy was legally contracted under Yemeni family law.
  • The best interests of the minor children and their safety required their transfer to the Netherlands, asserting that conditions for refugees in Türkiye were precarious.
  • Changing societal perspectives in Western Europe, including growing awareness of polyamorous relationships, should moderate strict public order prohibitions.

Dutch courts consistently rejected these arguments, reiterating that monogamy is an unyielding principle of public morality and civil law in the Netherlands, where bigamy remains a statutory criminal offense. The domestic courts emphasized that the children were living safely with their biological mothers in Türkiye with access to education and medical care, meaning their physical integrity was not in acute jeopardy.

The ECHR Verdict: Balancing Public Order Against Article 8

Taking the case to Strasbourg under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that the rejection disproportionately ruptured his family ties.

In its judgment, the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights recognized that a genuine de facto family life existed between the father and his children regardless of whether their parents’ marriage was legally recognized in Europe. However, the Court ruled that the Dutch refusal fell squarely within the state’s sovereign margin of appreciation.

Key findings established by the ECHR include:

  1. Unanimous European Consensus Against Polygamy: The Court underscored that polygamy is outlawed without exception across all member states of the Council of Europe. Consequently, member states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation when deciding whether to grant immigration benefits that derive from polygamous unions.
  2. Sovereignty over Public Order and Immigration: International treaties do not confer an unconditional right for foreign nationals to select their country of residence. National immigration controls intertwined with vital public order standards—such as gender equality and the defense of monogamy—can outweigh individual family reunification claims.
  3. The Best Interests of the Child Are Not an Absolute “Trump Card”: Reaffirming previous landmark jurisprudence (El Ghatet v. Switzerland, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands), the Court ruled that while the best interests of the child are of paramount importance, they cannot be deployed as an automatic trump card requiring European states to admit any minor whose standard of living might theoretically improve within Europe.
  4. Awareness of Legal Ramifications: The Court explicitly observed that the applicant chose to maintain all three marriages despite receiving clear guidance from immigration authorities that formalizing his marital status through divorce under civil procedures would have cleared the path for his children’s admission as non-marital offspring.

Broader European and Slovenian Context

While this judgment originated in the Netherlands, its core legal logic resonates across all EU Member States bound by Council Directive 2003/86/EC and the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court.

In the Republic of Slovenia:

  • Monogamy is a cornerstone of family law codified under the Family Code (Družinski zakonik). Any marriage contracted while an earlier marriage remains undissolved is legally invalid.
  • Under the Aliens Act (Zakon o tujcih – ZTuS), which regulates residence permits and family reunification handled through local administrative units (Upravna enota), applications must conform to Slovenian public order (javni red).
  • Under Slovenian immigration procedures, a foreigner holding lawful temporary or permanent residence can sponsor spouses and minor biological or adopted children, but strictly within the framework of a single, legally recognized marriage.

The Strasbourg ruling clarifies that administrative authorities and courts across Europe are fully justified in prioritizing domestic public order and the statutory prohibition of polygamy over broad interpretations of family reunification, provided that individual human rights circumstances are evaluated without arbitrariness.

About Us

At SIBIZ, we are proud to be the best in Slovenia in the fields of business migration, as well as corporate and individual relocation. We specialize in helping business professionals, corporate clients, and individuals navigate the complex landscape of Slovenian regulations and local administrative procedures. Our expert team is here to ensure your transition to Slovenia is smooth, compliant, and highly successful.

For more information: www.sibiz.eu