CJEU Case C-150/24 / Judgment

A v Rikoskomisario B (Aroja)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Fourth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
05/03/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:148

Title II: Freedoms

Article 6 - Right to liberty and security

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-150/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Immigration policy – Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – Directive 2008/115/EC – Detention for the purpose of removal – Article 15(5) and (6) – Calculation of the length of the detention already completed – Aggregation of all of the previous periods of detention – Conditions – Enforcement of one and the same return decision – Second sentence of Article 15(3) – Prolonged detention beyond the initial maximum period laid down under Article 15(5) – Review by a judicial authority – National legislation making the implementation of that review contingent on an application by the detained person – Point in time when such a review must be carried out – Consequence where a review is not carried out in good time.

    Outcome of the case:

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

    1. Article 15(5) and (6) 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, in order to determine whether the maximum period of detention laid down by a Member State under one of those provisions has been reached, it is necessary to aggregate all the periods of detention completed in that Member State by an illegally staying third-country national under Article 15 of that directive, with a view to the enforcement of one and the same return decision.

    2. The second sentence of Article 15(3) of Directive 2008/115

      must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the implementation of the review, by a judicial authority, of whether the initial maximum period of detention of six months, laid down by that Member State pursuant to Article 15(5) of that directive, was exceeded is made contingent on an application by the detained person.

    3. The second sentence of Article 15(3) of Directive 2008/115

      must be interpreted as meaning that the review, by a judicial authority, of the decision of the administrative authority to extend the detention beyond the initial maximum period of six months provided for under Article 15(5) thereof does not have to be carried out before that maximum period is reached, but must, in any event, be carried out, like the judicial review provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 15(2), as speedily as possible after the adoption of that decision.

    4. The second sentence of Article 15(3) of Directive 2008/115

      must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of a review, by a judicial authority in good time, of the administrative decision to extend the detention beyond the initial maximum period of six months provided for under Article 15(5) of that directive does not automatically entail the obligation to bring an immediate end to the detention where, at the time that judicial review is carried out, all the substantive conditions justifying continued detention are satisfied and the maximum period of detention provided for under Article 15(6) of that directive has not been reached.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    53. That being said, it is important to bear in mind, in the first place, that any detention of a third-country national, in particular under Directive 2008/115 in the context of a return procedure as a result of an illegal stay, constitutes a serious interference with the right to liberty, enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (judgments of 8 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Ex officio review of detention), C‑704/20 and C‑39/21, EU:C:2022:858, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited, and of 4 September 2025, Adrar, C‑313/25 PPU, EU:C:2025:647, paragraph 48).

    ...

    56. In the light of those factors, it cannot be accepted that each new detention for the purpose of removal, under Article 15(5) or (6) of Directive 2008/115, of an illegally staying third-country national, with a view to the enforcement of one and the same return decision, causes a new period of detention to begin, with the result that the previous periods of detention, carried out with a view to implementing that decision, do not have to be taken into account in order to assess whether the maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal laid down by the Member State concerned under one of those provisions has been reached in a given case. In view of the seriousness of that interference with the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter and the importance of that right, that conclusion is not called into question by the fact that those periods of detention are interspersed with periods of liberty.

    ...

    62. In addition, not taking into account all those previous periods of detention in order to assess whether the maximum period of detention provided for under Article 15(5) or (6) of Directive 2008/115 has been reached in a given case would make it possible to circumvent those provisions, even though the maximum periods of detention permitted by those provisions serve the objective of limiting the deprivation of liberty of an individual (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 November 2009, Kadzoev, C‑357/09 PPU, EU:C:2009:741, paragraph 56). Those provisions thus reflect the balance sought by the EU legislature between the right to freedom enshrined in the Charter and the main objective of that directive, which, as is apparent from recitals 2 and 4 thereof, is the establishment of an effective removal and repatriation policy that fully respects the fundamental rights and dignity of the persons concerned (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 June 2018, Gnandi, C‑181/16, EU:C:2018:465, paragraph 48; of 22 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Removal – Medicinal cannabis), C‑69/21, EU:C:2022:913, paragraph 88; and of 4 September 2025, Adrar, C‑313/25 PPU, EU:C:2025:647, paragraph 46).

    ...

    81. It must be recalled that, in view of the seriousness of the interference with the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter resulting from a detention decision under Directive 2008/115 and given the importance of that right, the power of the competent national authorities to detain third-country nationals is strictly circumscribed. A detention measure may thus be ordered or extended only in compliance with the general and abstract rules laying down the conditions and procedures governing such a measure (judgments of 8 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Ex officio review of detention), C‑704/20 and C‑39/21, EU:C:2022:858, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited, and of 4 September 2025, Adrar, C‑313/25 PPU, EU:C:2025:647, paragraph 51).

    82. The obligation for a review by a judicial authority of decisions of administrative authorities extending the detention beyond the initial maximum period of six months laid down under Article 15(5) of Directive 2008/115, which follows from the second sentence of Article 15(3) thereof, is intended to ensure the right to effective judicial protection of third-country nationals detained for the purpose of removal. Under Article 47 of the Charter, Member States are required to ensure effective judicial protection of the rights which individuals derive from EU law. Consequently, they must, inter alia, as required by the second sentence of Article 15(3) of that directive, make provision for a review, by a judicial authority, of the detention reviews carried out by the administrative authority in the event of prolonged periods of detention in order to ascertain whether the conditions governing the lawfulness of the detention continue to be met, and that judicial authority must be able to rule, including of its own motion, on all relevant matters of fact and of law for the purpose of verifying that lawfulness (see, to that effect, judgments of 8 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Ex officio review of detention), C‑704/20 and C‑39/21, EU:C:2022:858, paragraphs 81, 84 and 87 to 89 and the case-law cited, and of 4 September 2025, Adrar, C‑313/25 PPU, EU:C:2025:647, paragraphs 67, 69, 71 and 72). That judicial authority must also be empowered to release the person concerned immediately if it considers that the conditions which justified the detention are no longer satisfied or where it appears that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of removal (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 June 2014, Mahdi, C‑146/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:1320, paragraphs 59 to 62).

    ...

    92. Those rules provided for in Directive 2008/115, on the one hand, and in the provisions of national law implementing them, on the other, are the rules, arising from EU law, which lay down the conditions governing the lawfulness of detention, including in the light of Article 6 of the Charter (judgment of 8 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Ex officio review of detention), C‑704/20 and C‑39/21, EU:C:2022:858, paragraph 77).

    ...

    97. Second, exceeding that time limit does not render the decision to extend detention unlawful and therefore does not automatically require the release of the third-country national concerned. Immediate release is necessary only if the maximum period of detention provided for under Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115 has been reached (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 November 2009, Kadzoev, C‑357/09 PPU, EU:C:2009:741, paragraphs 60 and 62, and of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraph 279), in particular because, as is apparent from paragraph 53 above, detention constitutes a serious interference with the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter.

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)