Case summaries
The Supreme Court has requested two preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The time of onset and the determination of the duration of the suspect’s ‘undesirable declaration’, which is considered equal to an entry ban, are under discussion since this statement had already been issued before the Return Directive was operational.
Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive fulfils the requirements of proportionality by virtue of the strictly circumscribed framework regulating its use. In light of Article 52(3) of the Charter, Article 8(3)(e) therefore complies with Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR.
The Returns Directive does not preclude domestic legislation which provides for a prison sentence as a criminal law penalty for non-EU citizens who unlawfully re-enter the country in breach of an entry ban.
The right to be represented by a lawyer in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 will only apply when an appeal to a return decision has been lodged and free legal assistance will be subject to national domestic legislation.
The Returns Directive does not permit an entry ban to be time limited only in circumstances where the recipient makes an application for such.
The case concerned whether the Returns Directive precludesnational legislation providing for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a third-country national on the sole ground of their illegal entry or residence in national territory.