The application for entry into Austria made by the wife of an Afghan man who was a beneficiary of a subsidiary protection was rejected in Wife not recognised as a family member late 2011. The field office of the Federal Asylum Office in Eisenstadt (Burgenland) did not doubt the marriage, which had taken place in the Russian Federation, but the fact that they had actually lived together as a family in Afghanistan. The authorities criticised that the marriage had never been legally recognised in Afghanistan. The family had not been able to live together on a permanent basis either in the Russian Federation or in Afghanistan. The AOB shared the viewpoint of the European Court of Human Rights that male-female relationships based on a legal marriage are included in the area of applicability even if individual characteristics that are typical for life as a family are missing (European Court of Human Rights dated 28.5.1985, Abdulaziz, 9214/80, in line with the aforementioned ruling, Constitutional Court dated 24.11.2000, 2000/19/0216). According to the ruling, the refusal to allow the wife to enter Austria prevents the restoration of the family unit and represented inadmissible interference in their family life. It is gratifying to note that after the conclusion of the investigative proceedings, the Federal Ministry of the Interior confirmed family Ministry admitted mistake status of the wife and the uniform application to similar cases. In another family proceeding, the wife and four children of an Afghan man who was the beneficiary of a subsidiary protection were permitted to enter Austria. The Austrian Embassy in Islamabad had refused to grant him a visa in April 2011, as the field office of the Federal Asylum Office in Eisenstadt presumed that he had reached majority. The authorities referred globally to the inauthenticity of Afghan documents and did not examine the submitted passport, which confirmed Inadequate investigation of the child’s age that the child was a minor. An expert opinion regarding determination of his age was obtained in Pakistan; however, it did not correspond to the standards applicable in Austria. As, in the view of the AOB, the expert opinion could not remove doubts regarding the actual age, the Federal Asylum Office should have presumed his minority in favour of the applicant. The AOB recommended that this be taken into consideration in the ongoing proceedings. In July 2010, the wife and three children of a man from Ethiopia who was the beneficiary of a subsidiary protection applied for family re- Longer wait fo clarification of DNA analysis 87