Compulsory, indefinite placement of migrants in the transit zones qualifies as detention and is unlawful.
Organisations / Bodies / Institutions Archives: Court of Justice of the EU
The CJEU found that the Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Members States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation which provides for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed on an illegally staying third-country national on the sole ground that they remain, without valid grounds, on the territory of that State, contrary to an order to leave that territory within a given period.
The CJEU said that immigration related detention is justified only in order to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient. Only the judicial authority should deal with the decisions concerning the detention of a third-country national (for example an extension) and it should do so following a thorough assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances in the individual case.
Directive 2008/115 and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which they cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives.
This decision concerns a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (the Return Directive). The CJEU found that the child’s best interests principle applies also to decisions which are not addressed directly to a minor but have significant consequences for them.
This decision concerns a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the second paragraph of article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (the Dublin II Regulation). The CJEU found that the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all decisions adopted by the Member States on the basis of the referred norm.