Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU - C-673/19 M and Others (Transfert vers un État membre), 24 February 2021
Country of applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Detention, Inadmissible application, Residence document, Return

The Return Directive does not prevent a Member State from placing in administrative detention a third-country national residing illegally on its territory, in order to carry out the forced transfer of that national to another Member State in which that national has refugee status, where that national has refused to comply with the order to go to that other Member State and it is not possible to issue a return decision to him or her.

Date of decision: 24-02-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.2,Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (5),Article 1,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 6,Article 15
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return

The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had  they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.

Date of decision: 13-02-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Article 47,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 1,Article 2,Article 4,Article 5,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Art 33.2,Article 1,Article 3,Article 13,Article 13,Article 2,Article 4,Article 14,Article 21,Art 4,Art. 3,Article 67,Article 78
CJEU – C 444/17, Abdelaziz Arib v. France, 19 March 2019
Country of applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Detention, Freedom of movement (right to), Return

The CJEU clarified that the Schengen Border Code must be interpreted as not allowing Member States to equate an external border with an internal border at which controls have been reintroduced. So, the Return Directive’s exceptions for third-country national who crossed external borders do not apply to someone in the applicant’s position.

Date of decision: 19-03-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 2,Article 4,Article 15
CJEU - Case C‑47/15, Sélina Affum v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai
Country of applicant: Ghana
Keywords: Detention, Return
Imprisonment of a Third Country National on account of illegal entry to a Member State across an internal border of the Schengen area is not permitted under the Return Directive where said individual has not yet been subject to a return procedure.
 
This  applies equally to a Third Country National who is merely in transit on the territory of the Member State, is intercepted when leaving the Schengen area and is the subject of a procedure for readmission into the Member State from which he or she has come.
 
Date of decision: 07-06-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (10),Recital (17),Recital (26),Article 1,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 14,Article 15,Article 16,Article 17
CJEU - C‑554/13 Z. Zh. and O. V Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Country of applicant: China
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Return

This case related to two third country nationals who were ordered to leave the Netherlands, without being granted a period for voluntary departure, on the basis that they constituted a risk to public policy.

The CJEU gave guidance on the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Returns Directive, stating that the concept of a ‘risk to public policy’ should be interpreted strictly with an individualised assessment of the personal conduct of the person. Suspicion or conviction for a criminal offence was a relevant consideration. However, it was unnecessary to conduct a new assessment solely relating to the period for voluntary departure where the person had already been found to constitute a risk to public policy. 

Date of decision: 11-06-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Family Reunification Directive, Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003,Article 6,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Recital (2),Recital (6),Recital (10),Recital (11),Recital (24),Article 1,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
CJEU - C-430/11 Sagor
Country of applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Return

This case concerns the interpretation of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU.

Date of decision: 06-12-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 2,Article 4,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 15