Mrs. Chatterjee Vs Norway Movies Real Story in Hindi
Mrs. Chatterjee v. Norway is a landmark
case in international human rights law that was decided by the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR) in June 2013. The case involved an Indian woman named
Mrs. Chatterjee, who had been living in Norway with her husband and two
children since 2002.
Mrs. Chatterjee's husband was offered a job in India and the family decided to move back there. However, Mrs. Chatterjee's children did not want to leave Norway as they had grown up there and had friends and education there. Mrs. Chatterjee decided to stay back in Norway with her children while her husband returned to India for work.
Mrs. Chatterjee applied for a family
reunification visa for her husband to return to Norway, but her application was
rejected by the Norwegian authorities. The reason given was that Mrs.
Chatterjee's husband did not meet the minimum income requirements for family
reunification under Norwegian law.
Mrs. Chatterjee appealed the decision, arguing that it violated her and her children's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case eventually made its way to the ECtHR, which ruled in favor of Mrs. Chatterjee.
The ECtHR held that Norway's minimum
income requirements for family reunification violated Mrs. Chatterjee and her
children's right to family life. The Court found that Norway had failed to
strike a fair balance between the State's interest in controlling immigration
and the individual's right to respect for family life.
Mrs. Chatterjee v. Norway case is significant because it reaffirmed the importance of the right to family life in international human rights law, and emphasized the need for States to strike a fair balance between their immigration policies and the protection of individuals' human rights.
More details on the case of Mrs. Chatterjee v. Norway.
Facts of the Case:
Mrs. Chatterjee, an Indian national, had been living in Norway with her husband and two children since 2002. In 2008, her husband was offered a job in India and he moved there, leaving Mrs. Chatterjee and their two children in Norway. The children had grown up in Norway and had friends and education there, and they did not want to move to India with their father.
In 2009, Mrs. Chatterjee applied for a family reunification visa for her husband to return to Norway, but her application was rejected by the Norwegian authorities. The reason given was that Mrs. Chatterjee's husband did not meet the minimum income requirements for family reunification under Norwegian law.
Mrs. Chatterjee appealed the decision, arguing that it violated her and her children's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She argued that the minimum income requirement was arbitrary and did not take into account her husband's ability to support the family.
The case eventually made its way to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The decision of the ECtHR:
The ECtHR held that Norway's minimum income requirement for family reunification violated Mrs. Chatterjee and her children's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that Norway had failed to strike a fair balance between the State's interest in controlling immigration and the individual's right to respect for family life.
The Court noted that the minimum income requirement was not based on an assessment of the family's actual financial situation, but rather on a fixed threshold set by law. The Court found that this approach did not take into account the specific circumstances of the family, such as the fact that Mrs. Chatterjee's husband had a job offer in Norway.
The Court also found that the minimum income requirement was particularly harsh on families with children, as it made it difficult for them to reunite with their parents. The Court noted that the right to family life was especially important for children, who have a right to maintain contact with both parents.
The Court concluded that the minimum income requirement for family reunification in Norway was disproportionate and violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Impact of the Case:
The case of Mrs. Chatterjee v. Norway is significant because it reaffirmed the importance of the right to family life in international human rights law. It also emphasized the need for States to strike a fair balance between their immigration policies and the protection of individuals' human rights.
Following
the ECtHR's decision, Norway amended its family reunification laws to take into
account the specific circumstances of each family, rather than applying a fixed
threshold based on income. This has made it easier for families to reunite in
Norway and has strengthened the protection of the right to family life.
