CJEU Joined Cases C-636/23 and C-637/23 / Judgment

W and X v Belgische Staat and État belge, représenté par la Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
01/08/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:603
  • CJEU Joined Cases C-636/23 and C-637/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    References for a preliminary ruling – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Immigration policy – Directive 2008/115/EC – Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – Article 3(4) and (6), Article 7(1) and (4), Article 8(1) and (2), Article 11(1) and Article 13 – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Return decision – Decision not to grant a period for voluntary departure – Entry ban – Actionable administrative act – Enforceability of a return decision not containing a provision relating to the period for voluntary departure – Right to an effective remedy – Entry ban decision adopted after a considerable period of time.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 7(4), Article 8(1) and (2) and Article 11(1) 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

      must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the decision not to grant a period for voluntary departure from being regarded merely as an enforcement measure which does not alter the legal position of the third-country national concerned.

    2. Article 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

      must be interpreted as meaning that a decision not to grant a period for voluntary departure must be open to challenge in legal proceedings.

    3. Article 3(6) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2008/115

      must be interpreted as not precluding the competent national authority from imposing an entry ban, even after a considerable period of time, on the basis of a return decision that does not grant a period for voluntary departure.

    4. Article 3(4) and Article 7 of Directive 2008/115

      must be interpreted as meaning that the provision relating to the period for voluntary departure contained in a return decision is an integral part of the obligation to return imposed or set out by that decision, with the result that, if any unlawfulness is found as regards that provision relating to the period for voluntary departure, that decision must be annulled in its entirety.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    52. By the third part of its second question in Case C‑636/23, and by the second part of its first question in Case C‑637/23, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as requiring that a decision not to grant a period for voluntary departure may be challenged in legal proceedings.

    ...

    57. The answer to the third part of the second question in Case C‑636/23, and the second part of the first question in Case C‑637/23, is that Article 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision not to grant a period for voluntary departure must be open to challenge in legal proceedings.

    ...

    80. In such a case, that provision would state that no period for voluntary departure was granted because the procedural condition to which that period was subject had not been satisfied. However, the application of that provision by the competent authorities would also be subject to judicial review, in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in the light of recitals 6 and 10 of that directive and Article 47 of the Charter. It follows that, as the Advocate General observed in point 83 of his Opinion, any unlawfulness vitiating that provision would have an impact on the obligation to return imposed or set out in the return decision concerned and, consequently, on the return decision in its entirety.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)