Abstract

The judgment delivered by the ECtHR in the case M.T. and Others v. Sweden confirms the restrictive approach as regards the existence of positive obligations for states under Art. 8 of the ECHR with a view on the right to family life. More precisely, the Court finds that restrictions on family reunification imposed to the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection by the emergency legislation adopted by Sweden in 2015 do not violate Art. 8, both taken alone and read together with Art. 14 of the Convention. De-spite numerous calls from a number of international bodies in the direction of substantial convergence in the requirements for the protection of individuals granted a different migratory status, with a specif-ic view to access to family reunification, the Court preserves the wide margin of appreciation tradi-tionally accorded to states in relation to immigration. Consequently, despite all beneficiaries of inter-national protection reveal similar substantive protection needs as regards family unity, disparities in treatment based on migration status are nevertheless possible as long as they are not arbitrary or dis-proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the state