News

On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C‑26/25 (Bukla) following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Szeged High Court of Hungary (Szegedi Törvényszék). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and Directive 2008/115/EC (the ‘Return Directive’) regarding the adoption of a return decision on national security grounds against a third-country national who is a family member of Union citizens and the procedural safeguards applicable where such decisions are based on classified information.

The Court held that Article 20 TFEU and Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 require Member States, before adopting a return decision concerning a third-country national whose family members are Union citizens, to examine the consequences of that decision for the person’s family life and for the situation of the minor children concerned, where the authorities are aware of the existence of those family ties. It reiterated that they must assess if a relationship of dependency exists between the third-country national and the Union citizen family members, whether the removal decision could effectively compel the Union citizen to leave the territory of the European Union.

It further held that Article 20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, precludes national rules preventing courts from examining a derived right of residence during return proceedings where the relevant family ties are known to the competent authorities, including where the relevant facts emerge only during the judicial stage or where the return decision follows a previous refusal of residence.

The Court also clarified that national security risks do not justify the adoption of a return decision solely on the basis of a binding and non-reasoned opinion issued by a specialised national security authority. Under Article 20 TFEU and Articles 5, 12 and 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, the competent authorities must carry out an individual assessment of all relevant circumstances and verify that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality, including its impact on the person’s family life and the best interests of the children concerned.

Regarding classified information, the Court held that Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, Article 20 TFEU, the principle of good administration and Article 47 of the Charter, preclude national legislation preventing a third-country national from being informed of the essence of the grounds underlying a return decision and an entry ban based on confidential information, or from using such information in administrative or judicial proceedings. It clarified that the intervention of a public prosecutor who has access to the classified material but cannot disclose it to the person concerned is not sufficient to safeguard the rights of defence and an effective remedy. However, where disclosure of these grounds would jeopardise national security, such information may be withheld, provided that the national court reviewing the decision can draw the appropriate conclusions from that refusal and ensure effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the measure.

On 21 April 2026, the Council of State ruled on the lawfulness of the prohibition of access to classified information in the case of a Syrian national who was granted refugee status in 2017 and was later subject to a revocation procedure based on classified information indicating that the applicant posed danger to the national security of the country.

In the context of the revocation procedure that was initiated, the applicant submitted a request to access the relevant document on the basis of Article 23 (1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) and Article 76 (4) of Law 4939/2022. The request was rejected due to the confidential nature of the information the document contained. Eventually, the relevant department of the Asylum Authority issued a decision revoking the person’s refugee status. Following an appeal against the revocation decision, the Appeals Committee was able to examine the classified document and confirmed the existence of revocation grounds rejecting the appeal. The applicant sought to annul that second decision before the Athens Administrative Court and the annulment application was referred to the Council of State as it concerned a matter of general interest that affects many individuals. 

The Council of State examined the relevant provisions of EU primary law, including Articles 78, 72 and 73 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Articles 18, 19, and 47. It emphasised the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU which has found that the right of defence is not absolute but any limitations to it may not nullify the very essence of Article 47. Referring to Case C-159/21, the Council of State held that, although Member States may withhold classified information where disclosure would endanger national security, they must nevertheless ensure respect for the rights of defence. At a minimum, the person concerned must be informed of the substance of the reasons underlying the decision so that they can effectively challenge it. Therefore, the provision of Article 76 (4) of Law 4939/2022, which allows the relevant authority to prohibit access to classified information where national security grounds exist, cannot be interpreted as precluding access to the essence of the grounds that justified the revocation decision.

The Council of State also held that refugee status may be withdrawn on national security grounds and accompanied by a return decision, but the two assessments remain legally distinct. Even after the withdrawal of status, the person may still qualify as a refugee under international and EU law and therefore continue to benefit from the principle of non-refoulement under Article 18 and 19 CFREU and Article 5 of the Return Directive. Accordingly, the national authorities must ensure at every stage of the return process that the individual is not returned to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, on the basis of an individualised and up-to-date assessment.