News

On 23 April 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-446/24 (Freie Hansestadt Bremen v DT) originating from a request for a preliminary ruling by the Higher Administrative Court, Land of Bremen, Germany (Oberverwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 3(6) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC (the Return Directive) and whether EU law precludes national legislation which requires the imposition of an indefinite entry ban on third-country nationals subject to a return decision based on a terrorist threat.

The Court held that Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 establishes that in principle, the duration of an entry ban must not exceed five years. However, it observed that the second sentence of that provision expressly allows entry bans exceeding five years where the third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security, without laying down a maximum duration in such cases.

The Court further clarified that the reference in Article 3(6) of the Return Directive to a “specified period” does not necessarily require entry bans to be limited in time. Rather, that provision requires national authorities to determine the duration of the entry ban in a precise and reasoned manner in each individual case, whether the duration imposed is limited or unlimited.

The Court held that an indefinite entry ban may be compatible with EU law where national authorities are able to carry out an individualised assessment justifying both the existence of the threat and the duration of the ban in the particular case.

Finally, the Court noted that such an interpretation is consistent with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which a terrorist threat may justify not only expulsion measures but also re-entry bans of unlimited duration, as long as the individual circumstances of the person concerned are properly assessed.