On 20 October 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case M.T. and Others v. Sweden ruled that Sweden had neither violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The case concerned the suspension of family reunification in Sweden between July 2016 and July 2019 for those, such as the second applicant, who had been given temporary-protection status.

The Court found that Sweden had correctly balanced the needs of society and the applicants when denying them family reunification temporarily. It furthermore held that the difference in treatment of the applicants vis-à-vis refugees had been objectively justified, in particular given the strain on the State from the large number of refugees who had already been taken in, and had not been disproportionate

On 13 December, the ECtHR sitting as a Chamber of seven judges, examined requests for interim measures made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by applicants who, having lodged claims for international protection with the Belgian authorities either as adults or as unaccompanied minors, have been left without by applicants who, having lodged claims for international protection with the Belgian authorities either as adults or as unaccompanied minors, have been left without accommodation in Belgium because the asylum reception system there is purportedly at capacity.

The Court decided to indicate an interim measure to the Belgian State in respect of 143 adult male applicants who had obtained a final domestic decision, as yet uncomplied with, from the Brussels Labour Court. It also decided pursuant to Rule 39 § 2 of the Rules of Court to give notice of the interim measure to the Committee of Ministers. The case has been listed as Al Shujaa and Others v. Belgium.

The Court decided to reject the requests for interim measures of those applicants (adults or unaccompanied minors) who had not obtained a final domestic decision. There are 57 such applicants.

It also took note of the decision of some applicants (unaccompanied minors) to withdraw their requests for interim measures because they had since obtained accommodation.