Facts
X. (born 1968) was married in Turkey from 1992 to 2002. This marriage produced two children: Y. (born 1993) and Z. (born 1996). On March 12, 2002, X. applied for asylum in Switzerland and married a German national residing here on December 24, 2002. On August 13, 2007, X. requested to bring his children to Switzerland, which the Department of the Interior of the Canton of Solothurn rejected on December 16, 2008. The Administrative Court confirmed this decision on April 8, 2009.
On December 18, 2008, and January 6, 2009, X. applied to the Department of the Interior of the Canton of Solothurn to reconsider the decision of December 16, 2008, as the legal situation had changed. The Department did not enter into the request on May 13, 2009, as no new facts or circumstances were apparent. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal filed against this on July 14, 2009.
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the appeal filed by X. against this, sets aside the judgment of the Administrative Court, and remands the case to the Department of the Interior of the Canton of Solothurn for a new decision in accordance with the considerations.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that for the admissibility of the appeal in public law matters, a plausibly justified potential entitlement to a permit is sufficient. X. can, in principle, invoke Art. 7 lit. d FZA for his stay and that of his children due to the citizenship of his spouse or her (original) right of residence as an employee.
The Federal Supreme Court clarifies that the administrative authority is constitutionally obliged to enter into a new request if the circumstances have changed significantly since the first decision or if the applicant cites significant facts and evidence that were not known to him in the previous proceedings. In the present case, the legal situation has changed significantly due to the enactment of the Aliens Act and the case law of the Federal Supreme Court on the family reunification of…