example, refused to responsibility for applicants who couldn’t prove their relationship with the person they wished to be reunited with, while other countries were taking into consideration circumstantial evidence and may have conducted interviews with the family members/ relatives. However, in 2022, according to NGOs, Germany accepted circumstantial evidence while France did not. Italy is reportedly more flexible than other Member States on that issue. Furthermore, only documents in English or the official language of the requested Member State are considered by the Dublin Units of some of the Member States. According to the information by the Greek Dublin Unit, Afghan identification documents and documents provided by other nationals, such as Somali nationals, are not considered by Germany’s BAMF as viable evidence to prove the family link, given that they could easily be forged. According to NGOs, in 2022 Germany and Sweden doubted the authenticity of Somali identification documents and asked for a DNA test. Most of the Member States, consider the requirement of the DNA test to be the last resort, while other, such as Spain and Ireland request a DNA test regardless of the submission of identification documents. German Authorities have also rejected cases due to lack of DNA test results regardless of submission of identification documents and circumstantial evidence. Sweden and the Netherlands, requested for DNA results proving the kinship, especially regarding applications of other than art 9 and 10. Since 2017, Dublin Units have increasingly refused requests in cases of subsequent separation of family members who entered Greece and applied for asylum prior to departure to another Member State on the basis that the family separation was ‘self-inflicted’ and was contrary to the best interests of the child. The Greek Authorities have partially adopted this reasoning. According to a circular of the Asylum Service of 1/2020 such requests should not be sent, and the cases should be referred to the regular procedure. The same would apply in cases where minors were subsequently separated from their family and travelled to another Member State. The only exception is when another Member State specifically asks for a take charge request. In any case, an assessment of each case always precedes the referral to the regular procedure. Based on GCR’s experience, such requests have been accepted by the authorities of Sweden, Switzerland and Luxembourg while German Authorities rejected them arguing that the family was together at the time the application for international protection was lodged (Article 7 par. 2 of the Regulation EU 604/2013) and that the humanitarian grounds of Article 17 (2) do not apply. They also sometimes argue that further consideration of such cases would undermine the meaning of the Dublin III Regulation, which is to ‘prevent secondary movement’. However, in two cases dealt with in 2022, Germany accepted a “humanitarian clause” request for the reunification of parents with their two daughters in Germany, one of whom had arrived there after submission of the asylum application in Greece 337 as well the reunification of two brothers in a case of a subsequent separation338. In contrast, Belgium rejected a request based on Article 17(2) of the Regulation regarding a family with a minor son, on the basis that the mother’s departure from Greece after the family’s application had been submitted was not in the best interests of her child.339 It is also difficult to establish a family relationship in cases of marriages by proxy, as they may not be recognised by the receiving state’s domestic law. GCR is aware of at least one case of family reunification that was rejected by the German Authorities, because the applicant’s spouse was already present in the requested Member State’s territory when the marriage ceremony took place. 337 338 339 Information provided by the RSA. Information provided by European Expression. Information provided by the RSA. 74