The author of the communication is S.S.S., a national of Ethiopia born in 2006. In 2016, the authorities of the State party granted him and his father temporary refugee status (F permit). The author claims that by rejecting his application for family reunification with his mother and two sisters, who currently reside in Saudi Arabia, the State party has violated his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The author is represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 24 July 2017.
On 24 February 2017, the author and his father applied for family reunification for the author’s mother and two sisters, who continued to reside in Saudi Arabia. The request was rejected by the State Secretariat for Migration on 12 July 2018 on the grounds that it did not meet certain procedural and substantive criteria, namely that the three-year waiting period required before applying for refugee status had not been completed and that the applicants did not have the level of financial independence required by law. On 29 August 2019, the author and his father submitted a new request. This request was also rejected by the State Secretariat on 8 December 2020 on the ground that the applicants did not meet the financial independence criteria owing to S.S.S.’s father’s inability to work due to his permanent disability. The author and his father lodged an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court against the decision. On 12 January 2022, the Court dismissed the appeal, citing the same ground as the State Secretariat for Migration. The author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies, as it is not possible to appeal the Court’s decision.
On 29 July 2022, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications, registered the communication.
On 29 September 2022, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested the Committee to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. It claimed that the present communication was incompatible with the provisions of article 7 (c) of the Optional Protocol and should be considered inadmissible ratione materiae.
The State party points out that, on ratifying the Convention, it entered the following reservation to article 10 (1) of the Convention: “Swiss legislation, which does not guarantee family reunification to certain categories of aliens, is unaffected”. The validity of the reservation has never been challenged by a State party to the Convention or by the Committee. The State party notes that the author argues, in substance, that the national authorities’ refusal to grant his application for family reunification is incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. Although he does not expressly invoke article 10 (1), his complaint relates materially to the guarantees of that provision and challenges the State party’s rules on family reunification. The State party considers that a reservation relating to a specific provision cannot be circumvented by invoking a provision of a general nature, such as article 3 of the Convention, which applies in all areas covered by the instrument. The author cannot therefore infer from article 3 of the Convention rights or claims that are in fact covered by article 10 (1), even if the State party has made a clear reservation thereto.
On 17 March 2023, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility of the communication. He indicated that, in the light of the State party’s comments, he wished to withdraw the individual communication he had submitted to the Committee.
Given that the author had lost interest in communication No. 192/2022, the Committee therefore decided to discontinue its consideration thereof, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.