detention of applicants for international protection in ... · detention of applicants for...
TRANSCRIPT
-
European Asylum Support Office
SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION
Compilation of jurisprudence
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
2019
EASO Professional Development Seriesfor members of courts and tribunals
-
European Asylum Support Office
SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION
Compilation of jurisprudence
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
2019
-
Manuscript completed in 2018
Neither the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) nor any person acting on behalf of the EASO is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019
Print ISBN 978-92-9476-062-3 doi:10.2847/41737 BZ-02-18-925-EN-CPDF ISBN 978-92-9476-061-6 doi:10.2847/150970 BZ-02-18-925-EN-N
Cover illustration: © baldyrgan/Shutterstock.com
© European Union, 2019 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EASO copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
-
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 3
European Asylum Support Office
EASO is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need.
Article 6 of the EASO founding regulation (1) (hereinafter the Regulation) specifies that the Agency shall establish and develop training available to members of courts and tribunals in the Member States. For this purpose, EASO shall take advantage of the expertise of academic institutions and other relevant organisations, and take into account the Union’s existing coop-eration in the field with full respect to the independence of national courts and tribunals.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office [2010] OJ L 132/11.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:132:0011:0028:EN:PDF
-
4 — Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Contributors
This Compilation of Jurisprudence has been developed by a working group consisting of judges Aikaterini Koutsopoulou (Greece, working group co-coordinator), Julian Phillips (United King-dom, working group co-coordinator), Judith Putzer (Austria), Dobroslav Rukov (Bulgaria), Marie-Cécile Moulin-Zys (France), Ulrich Drews (Germany), Jure Likar (Slovenia), and legal assistant to the court Lenka Horáková (Czech Republic) and Samuel Boutruche (UNHCR).
They have been invited for this purpose by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in accordance with the methodology set out in Appendix C of the Judicial Analysis. The recruit-ment of the members of the working group was carried out in accordance with the scheme agreed between EASO and the members of the EASO network of court and tribunal members. The working group itself met on four occasions in March, April, June and October of 2018 in Malta.
This chapter will be updated in accordance with the methodology set out in Appendix B of the judicial analysis.
-
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 5
Cour
t of J
ustic
e of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on (C
JEU
) Jur
ispr
uden
ce
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
CJEU
K. C-18
/16
14.0
9.20
17
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
017:
680
Key
wor
ds: D
eten
tion
grou
nds,
pro
cedu
ral a
nd le
gal s
afeg
uard
s, v
alid
ity.
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a p
relim
inar
y ru
ling
from
the
Rech
tban
k D
en H
aag
zitti
ngsp
laat
s H
aarl
em —
Net
herl
ands
con
cern
ing
the
valid
ity o
f th
e fir
st s
ubpa
ragr
aph
of A
rticl
e 8(
3)(a
) and
(b) o
f Dire
ctive
201
3/33
/EU
.
Sum
mar
y:
The
exam
inati
on o
f the
firs
t su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Arti
cle
8(3)
(a) a
nd (b
) of D
irecti
ve 2
013/
33/E
U o
f the
Eur
opea
n Pa
rlia
men
t an
d of
the
Cou
ncil
of 2
6 Ju
ne 2
013
layi
ng d
own
stan
dard
s fo
r the
rece
ption
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ction
has
dis
clos
ed n
othi
ng c
apab
le o
f affe
cting
the
valid
ity
of th
at p
rovi
sion
in th
e lig
ht o
f Arti
cles
6 a
nd 5
2(1)
and
(3) o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on.
In t
hat
rega
rd, i
t sh
ould
be
note
d th
at t
he li
mita
tion
on t
he e
xerc
ise
of t
he r
ight
to
liber
ty r
esul
ting
from
the
firs
t su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Arti
cle
8(3)
(a)
and
(b)
of D
irecti
ve 2
013/
33 is
pro
vide
d fo
r by
EU
legi
slati
on a
nd t
hat
it do
es n
ot a
ffect
the
ess
ence
of
the
righ
t to
libe
rty
laid
dow
n in
Arti
cle
6 of
the
Cha
rter
. The
firs
t su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Arti
cle
8(3)
(a) a
nd (b
) of t
hat
dire
ctive
doe
s no
t re
nder
the
gua
rant
ee o
f tha
t ri
ght
less
sec
ure
and
— a
s is
app
aren
t fr
om t
he w
ordi
ng o
f th
e pr
ovis
ion
and
reci
tal 1
5 of
the
dire
ctive
— t
he p
ower
tha
t it
conf
ers
on M
embe
r St
ates
ena
bles
the
m t
o de
tain
an
appl
ican
t on
ly o
n th
e ba
sis
of h
is in
divi
dual
con
duct
and
und
er t
he e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s re
ferr
ed t
o in
the
sam
e pr
ovis
ion,
tho
se
circ
umst
ance
s al
so b
eing
circ
umsc
ribe
d by
all
the
cond
ition
s se
t ou
t in
Arti
cles
8 a
nd 9
of t
he d
irecti
ve (s
ee, b
y an
alog
y, ju
dgm
ent
of 1
5 Fe
brua
ry
2016
, N.,
C-60
1/15
PPU
, EU
:C:2
016:
84, p
arag
raph
s 51
and
52)
. In
that
reg
ard,
it is
app
aren
t bo
th f
rom
the
wor
ding
and
con
text
of
Arti
cle
8 of
D
irecti
ve 2
013/
33 a
nd f
rom
its
legi
slati
ve h
isto
ry t
hat
that
pow
er is
sub
ject
to
com
plia
nce
with
a s
erie
s of
con
ditio
ns w
hose
aim
is t
o cr
eate
a
stri
ctly
circ
umsc
ribe
d fr
amew
ork
in w
hich
suc
h a
mea
sure
may
be
used
.
The
limita
tions
on
the
exer
cise
of t
he ri
ght c
onfe
rred
by
Arti
cle
6 of
the
Char
ter c
onta
ined
in th
e fir
st s
ubpa
ragr
aph
of A
rticl
e 8(
3)(a
) and
(b) o
f tha
t di
recti
ve a
re a
lso
not d
ispr
opor
tiona
te to
the
aim
s pu
rsue
d. In
that
rega
rd, i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
that
the
first
sub
para
grap
h of
Arti
cle
8(3)
(a) a
nd (b
) is
base
d on
a fa
ir b
alan
ce b
etw
een
the
gene
ral i
nter
est o
bjec
tive
purs
ued,
nam
ely
the
prop
er fu
nctio
ning
of t
he C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asy
lum
Sys
tem
, al
low
ing
appl
ican
ts w
ho a
re g
enui
nely
in n
eed
to b
e gr
ante
d in
tern
ation
al p
rote
ction
and
refu
sing
, on
the
one
hand
, app
licati
ons
from
thos
e w
ho
do n
ot s
atisf
y th
e co
nditi
ons
and,
on
the
othe
r han
d, in
terf
eren
ce w
ith th
e ri
ght t
o lib
erty
resu
lting
from
a d
eten
tion
mea
sure
. Alth
ough
the
prop
er
func
tioni
ng o
f the
Com
mon
Eur
opea
n A
sylu
m S
yste
m r
equi
res,
in p
racti
ce, t
hat
the
com
pete
nt n
ation
al a
utho
ritie
s ha
ve a
t th
eir
disp
osal
rel
iabl
e in
form
ation
rela
ting
to th
e id
entit
y or
nati
onal
ity o
f the
app
lican
t for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on a
nd to
the
elem
ents
on
whi
ch h
is a
pplic
ation
is b
ased
, th
at p
rovi
sion
can
not j
ustif
y de
tenti
on m
easu
res
bein
g de
cide
d w
ithou
t tho
se n
ation
al a
utho
ritie
s ha
ving
pre
viou
sly
dete
rmin
ed, o
n a
case
-by-
case
ba
sis,
whe
ther
they
are
pro
porti
onat
e to
the
aim
s pu
rsue
d.
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt to
det
entio
n: 3
1-54
.
CJEU
:
N.,
C-60
1/15
PPU
ECtH
R:
Nab
il an
d ot
hers
v H
unga
ry,
6211
6/12
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m,
1322
9/03
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=194431&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=167227https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-157392"]}https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-84709"]}
-
6 — Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
CJEU
Khir
Am
ayry
C60/
16
13.0
9.20
17
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
017:
675
Key
wor
ds: D
urati
on o
f det
entio
n, s
uspe
nsiv
e eff
ect.
Judg
men
t aft
er a
ref
eren
ce fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om t
he K
amm
arrä
tten
i St
ockh
olm
— M
igra
tions
över
dom
stol
en —
Sw
eden
con
cern
ing
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Arti
cle
28(3
) of R
egul
ation
(EU
) No
604/
2013
.
Rulin
g:
1. A
rticl
e 28
of R
egul
ation
(EU
) No
604/
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parl
iam
ent a
nd o
f the
Cou
ncil
of 2
6 Ju
ne 2
013
esta
blis
hing
the
crite
ria
and
mec
hani
sms
for
dete
rmin
ing
the
Mem
ber
Stat
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r ex
amin
ing
an a
pplic
ation
for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on lo
dged
in o
ne o
f th
e M
embe
r St
ates
by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al o
r a s
tate
less
per
son,
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rticl
e 6
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on, m
ust
be in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
:
– it
does
not
pre
clud
e na
tiona
l leg
isla
tion,
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs,
whi
ch p
rovi
des
that
, whe
re th
e de
tenti
on o
f an
appl
ican
t fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tecti
on b
egin
s aft
er th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
has
acc
epte
d th
e ta
ke c
harg
e re
ques
t, th
at d
eten
tion
may
be
mai
ntai
ned
for
no lo
nger
tha
n tw
o m
onth
s, p
rovi
ded,
firs
t, t
hat
the
dura
tion
of t
he d
eten
tion
does
not
go
beyo
nd t
he p
erio
d of
tim
e w
hich
is n
eces
sary
for
the
purp
oses
of t
hat
tran
sfer
pro
cedu
re, a
sses
sed
by ta
king
acc
ount
of t
he s
peci
fic r
equi
rem
ents
of t
hat
proc
edur
e in
eac
h sp
ecifi
c ca
se a
nd, s
econ
d,
that
, whe
re a
pplic
able
, tha
t dur
ation
is n
ot to
be
long
er th
an s
ix w
eeks
from
the
date
whe
n th
e ap
peal
or r
evie
w c
ease
s to
hav
e su
spen
sive
effe
ct;
and
– it
does
pre
clud
e na
tiona
l leg
isla
tion,
such
as t
hat a
t iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s, w
hich
allo
ws,
in su
ch a
situ
ation
, the
det
entio
n to
be
mai
ntai
ned
for
3 or
12
mon
ths
duri
ng w
hich
the
tran
sfer
cou
ld b
e re
ason
ably
car
ried
out
.
2. A
rticl
e 28
(3) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulati
on m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
the
num
ber o
f day
s du
ring
whi
ch th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed w
as a
lread
y de
tain
ed a
fter
a M
embe
r St
ate
has
acce
pted
the
take
cha
rge
or ta
ke b
ack
requ
est
need
not
be
dedu
cted
from
the
six
wee
k pe
riod
est
ablis
hed
by
that
pro
visi
on, f
rom
the
mom
ent w
hen
the
appe
al o
r re
view
no
long
er h
as s
uspe
nsiv
e eff
ect.
3. A
rticl
e 28
(3) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulati
on m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
the
six
wee
k pe
riod
beg
inni
ng fr
om th
e m
omen
t whe
n th
e ap
peal
or
rev
iew
no
long
er h
as s
uspe
nsiv
e eff
ectiv
e, e
stab
lishe
d by
tha
t pr
ovis
ion,
als
o ap
plie
s w
hen
the
susp
ensi
on o
f th
e ex
ecuti
on o
f th
e tr
ansf
er
deci
sion
was
not
spe
cific
ally
requ
este
d by
the
pers
on c
once
rned
.
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt to
det
entio
n: 2
2-73
.
Al C
hodo
r, C
-528
/15
CJEU
Al C
hodo
r and
oth
ers
C-52
8/15
15.0
3.20
17
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
017:
213
Key
wor
ds: O
bjec
tive
crite
ria,
sig
nific
ant r
isk
of a
bsco
ndin
g, b
indi
ng p
rovi
sion
s.
Judg
men
t aft
er a
ref
eren
ce fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om t
he N
ejvy
šší s
práv
ní s
oud
— C
zech
Rep
ublic
, on
obje
ctive
cri
teri
a de
finin
g th
e ex
iste
nce
of a
ris
k of
abs
cond
ing.
Sum
mar
y:
Arti
cle
2(n)
and
Arti
cle
28(2
) of
Reg
ulati
on (
EU)
No
604/
2013
of
the
Euro
pean
Par
liam
ent
and
of t
he C
ounc
il of
26
June
201
3 es
tabl
ishi
ng t
he
crite
ria
and
mec
hani
sms
for
dete
rmin
ing
the
Mem
ber
Stat
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r ex
amin
ing
an a
pplic
ation
for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on lo
dged
in o
ne
of t
he M
embe
r St
ates
by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al o
r a
stat
eles
s pe
rson
, rea
d in
con
junc
tion,
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as r
equi
ring
Mem
ber
Stat
es t
o es
tabl
ish,
in a
bin
ding
pro
visi
on o
f ge
nera
l app
licati
on, o
bjec
tive
crite
ria
unde
rlyi
ng t
he r
easo
ns fo
r be
lievi
ng t
hat
an a
pplic
ant
for
inte
rnati
onal
pr
otec
tion
who
is s
ubje
ct to
a tr
ansf
er p
roce
dure
may
abs
cond
. The
abs
ence
of s
uch
a pr
ovis
ion
lead
s to
the
inap
plic
abili
ty o
f Arti
cle
28(2
) of t
hat
regu
latio
n. T
akin
g ac
coun
t of
the
pur
pose
of
the
prov
isio
ns c
once
rned
, and
in t
he li
ght
of t
he h
igh
leve
l of
prot
ectio
n w
hich
fol
low
s fr
om t
heir
co
ntex
t, o
nly
a pr
ovis
ion
of g
ener
al a
pplic
ation
cou
ld m
eet
the
requ
irem
ents
of
clar
ity, p
redi
ctab
ility
, acc
essi
bilit
y an
d, in
par
ticul
ar, p
rote
ction
ag
ains
t arb
itrar
ines
s.
(see
par
as 4
3, 4
7, o
pera
tive
part
)
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt fo
r de
tenti
on: 2
4-47
.
N.,
C-60
1/15
PPU
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=194404&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=397155http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de837ea8841e2b4e3eb5f2a910f868def6.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pb34Ne0?text=&docid=188907&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=849144http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de837ea8841e2b4e3eb5f2a910f868def6.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pb34Ne0?text=&docid=188907&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=849144
-
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 7
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
CJEU
C.K.
and
oth
ers
C-57
8/16
PPU
16.0
2.20
17
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
017:
127
Key
wor
ds: R
isk
of in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t
Judg
men
t aft
er a
ref
eren
ce fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om t
he V
rhov
no s
odiš
če —
Slo
veni
a co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Arti
cles
3(2
) and
17(
1)
of R
egul
ation
(EU
) No
604/
2013
.
Sum
mar
y:
2. A
rticl
e 17
(1)
of R
egul
ation
(EU
) N
o 60
4/20
13 o
f th
e Eu
rope
an P
arlia
men
t an
d of
the
Cou
ncil
of 2
6 Ju
ne 2
013
esta
blis
hing
the
cri
teri
a an
d m
echa
nism
s fo
r det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sibl
e fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
ation
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ction
lodg
ed in
one
of t
he M
embe
r St
ates
by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al o
r a s
tate
less
per
son
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e qu
estio
n of
the
appl
icati
on, b
y a
Mem
ber S
tate
, of
the
‘dis
creti
onar
y cl
ause
’ lai
d do
wn
in th
at p
rovi
sion
is n
ot g
over
ned
sole
ly b
y na
tiona
l law
and
by
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n gi
ven
to it
by
the
cons
tituti
onal
co
urt o
f tha
t Mem
ber
Stat
e, b
ut is
a q
uesti
on c
once
rnin
g th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of E
U la
w, w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rticl
e 26
7 TF
EU.
(see
par
a. 5
4, o
pera
tive
part
1)
3. A
rticl
e 4
of th
e Ch
arte
r of
Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
of th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at:
– ev
en w
here
the
re a
re n
o su
bsta
ntial
gro
unds
for
bel
ievi
ng t
hat
ther
e ar
e sy
stem
ic fl
aws
in t
he M
embe
r St
ate
resp
onsi
ble
for
exam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
ation
for
asyl
um, t
he tr
ansf
er o
f an
asyl
um s
eeke
r w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
Reg
ulati
on N
o 60
4/20
13 c
an ta
ke p
lace
onl
y in
con
ditio
ns w
hich
ex
clud
e th
e po
ssib
ility
that
that
tran
sfer
mig
ht re
sult
in a
real
and
pro
ven
risk
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
suffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t,
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f tha
t arti
cle;
– in
circ
umst
ance
s in
whi
ch t
he t
rans
fer
of a
n ap
plic
ant
for
asyl
um w
ith p
artic
ular
ly s
erio
us m
enta
l or
phys
ical
illn
ess
wou
ld e
ntai
l a r
eal a
nd
prov
en ri
sk o
f a s
igni
fican
t and
per
man
ent d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned,
that
tran
sfer
wou
ld c
onsti
tute
inhu
man
or
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
hat a
rticl
e;
– it
is fo
r the
aut
hori
ties o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
hav
ing
to c
arry
out
the
tran
sfer
and
, if n
eces
sary
, its
cou
rts t
o el
imin
ate
any
seri
ous d
oubt
s con
cern
ing
the
impa
ct o
f th
e tr
ansf
er o
n th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
by
taki
ng t
he n
eces
sary
pre
cauti
ons
for
the
tran
sfer
to
take
pla
ce in
co
nditi
ons
enab
ling
appr
opri
ate
and
suffi
cien
t pro
tecti
on o
f tha
t per
son’
s st
ate
of h
ealth
. If,
taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt th
e pa
rticu
lar s
ever
ity o
f the
illn
ess
of th
e ap
plic
ant f
or a
sylu
m c
once
rned
, tak
ing
thos
e pr
ecau
tions
is n
ot s
uffici
ent t
o en
sure
that
his
tran
sfer
doe
s no
t ent
ail a
risk
of a
sig
nific
ant a
nd
perm
anen
t wor
seni
ng o
f his
sta
te o
f hea
lth, i
t is
for t
he a
utho
ritie
s of
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s co
ncer
ned
to s
uspe
nd th
e en
forc
emen
t of t
he tr
ansf
er o
f th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed fo
r su
ch ti
me
as h
is s
tate
rend
ers
him
unfi
t for
suc
h a
tran
sfer
; and
– w
here
nec
essa
ry, i
f it
is n
oted
tha
t th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of
the
asyl
um s
eeke
r co
ncer
ned
is n
ot e
xpec
ted
to im
prov
e in
the
sho
rt t
erm
, or
that
th
e su
spen
sion
of
the
proc
edur
e fo
r a
long
per
iod
wou
ld r
isk
wor
seni
ng t
he c
ondi
tion
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned,
the
req
uesti
ng M
embe
r St
ate
may
cho
ose
to c
ondu
ct it
s ow
n ex
amin
ation
of t
hat
pers
on’s
app
licati
on b
y m
akin
g us
e of
the
‘dis
creti
onar
y cl
ause
’ lai
d do
wn
in A
rticl
e 17
(1) o
f Re
gula
tion
No
604/
2013
.
Arti
cle
17(1
) of
Reg
ulati
on N
o 60
4/20
13, r
ead
in t
he li
ght
of A
rticl
e 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts
of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on, c
anno
t be
in
terp
rete
d as
requ
irin
g, in
circ
umst
ance
s su
ch a
s th
ose
at is
sue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs,
that
Mem
ber
Stat
e to
app
ly th
at c
laus
e.
In a
ny e
vent
, if t
he s
tate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
pplic
ant
for
asyl
um c
once
rned
doe
s no
t en
able
the
req
uesti
ng M
embe
r St
ate
to c
arry
out
the
tra
nsfe
r be
fore
the
exp
iry
of t
he p
erio
d of
six
mon
ths
prov
ided
for
in
Arti
cle
29(1
) of
the
Dub
lin I
II Re
gula
tion,
the
Mem
ber
Stat
e re
spon
sibl
e w
ould
be
rel
ieve
d of
its
oblig
ation
to
take
cha
rge
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
and
resp
onsi
bilit
y w
ould
the
n be
tra
nsfe
rred
to
the
first
Mem
ber
Stat
e, in
ac
cord
ance
with
the
seco
nd p
arag
raph
of t
hat a
rticl
e.
(see
par
as 8
9, 9
6, 9
7, o
pera
tive
part
2)
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt to
det
entio
n: 9
6.
N.S
. and
Oth
ers,
C-4
11/1
0 an
d C-
493/
10
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=187916&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=849348
-
8 — Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
CJEU
J. N
. v S
taat
ssec
reta
ris
van
Veili
ghei
d en
Ju
stitie
C-60
1/15
PPU
15.0
2.20
16
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
016:
84
Key
wor
ds: D
eten
tion,
pro
tecti
on o
f nati
onal
sec
urity
or
publ
ic o
rder
, val
idity
, Cha
rter
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a p
relim
inar
y ru
ling
from
from
the
Raad
van
Sta
te (C
ounc
il of
Sta
te, N
ethe
rlan
ds) c
once
rnin
g th
e va
lidity
of p
oint
(e)
of th
e fir
st s
ubpa
ragr
aph
of A
rticl
e 8(
3) o
f Dire
ctive
201
3/33
/EU
.
Sum
mar
y:
2. T
here
is n
o fa
ctor
of s
uch
a ki
nd a
s to
affe
ct th
e va
lidity
— in
the
light
of A
rticl
es 6
and
52(
1) a
nd (3
) of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
of th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
— o
f poi
nt (e
) of t
he fi
rst s
ubpa
ragr
aph
of A
rticl
e 8(
3) o
f Dire
ctive
201
3/33
layi
ng d
own
stan
dard
s fo
r th
e re
cepti
on o
f app
lican
ts
for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on, w
hich
allo
ws
an a
pplic
ant
to b
e de
tain
ed fo
r re
ason
s re
latin
g to
the
pro
tecti
on o
f na
tiona
l sec
urity
or
publ
ic o
rder
. G
iven
tha
t th
e ob
jecti
ve p
ursu
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
is t
he p
rote
ction
of n
ation
al s
ecur
ity a
nd p
ublic
ord
er, a
mea
sure
ord
erin
g de
tenti
on w
hich
is
base
d on
the
prov
isio
n ge
nuin
ely
mee
ts a
n ob
jecti
ve o
f gen
eral
inte
rest
reco
gnis
ed b
y th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
. In
addi
tion,
the
prot
ectio
n of
nati
onal
se
curi
ty a
nd p
ublic
ord
er a
lso
cont
ribu
tes
to th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e ri
ghts
and
free
dom
s of
oth
ers.
Arti
cle
6 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on s
tate
s in
this
rega
rd th
at e
very
one
has
the
righ
t not
onl
y to
libe
rty
but a
lso
to s
ecur
ity o
f per
son.
As
rega
rds
the
prop
ortio
nalit
y of
the
inte
rfer
ence
with
the
rig
ht t
o lib
erty
to
whi
ch a
mea
sure
ord
erin
g de
tenti
on g
ives
ris
e, t
he d
eten
tion
of a
n ap
plic
ant
whe
re t
he p
rote
ction
of
natio
nal s
ecur
ity o
r pu
blic
ord
er s
o re
quire
s is
, by
its v
ery
natu
re, a
n ap
prop
riat
e m
easu
re fo
r pr
otec
ting
the
publ
ic fr
om t
he t
hrea
t w
hich
the
con
duct
of s
uch
a pe
rson
rep
rese
nts
and
is t
hus
suita
ble
for
attai
ning
the
obj
ectiv
e pu
rsue
d by
poi
nt (e
) of t
he
first
sub
para
grap
h of
Arti
cle
8(3)
of D
irecti
ve 2
013/
33. M
oreo
ver,
it is
app
aren
t bot
h fr
om th
e w
ordi
ng a
nd c
onte
xt o
f Arti
cle
8 of
Dire
ctive
201
3/33
an
d fr
om it
s le
gisl
ative
his
tory
that
the
poss
ibili
ty —
pro
vide
d fo
r in
poi
nt (e
) of t
he fi
rst s
ubpa
ragr
aph
of p
arag
raph
3 —
of d
etai
ning
an
appl
ican
t fo
r rea
sons
rela
ting
to th
e pr
otec
tion
of n
ation
al s
ecur
ity o
r pub
lic o
rder
is s
ubje
ct to
com
plia
nce
with
a s
erie
s of
con
ditio
ns w
hose
aim
is to
cre
ate
a st
rict
ly c
ircum
scri
bed
fram
ewor
k in
whi
ch s
uch
a m
easu
re m
ay b
e us
ed. I
n th
at re
gard
, Arti
cle
9(1)
of D
irecti
ve 2
013/
13 p
rovi
des
that
an
appl
ican
t is
to b
e de
tain
ed o
nly
for
as s
hort
a p
erio
d as
pos
sibl
e an
d m
ay b
e ke
pt in
det
entio
n on
ly fo
r as
long
as
the
grou
nds
set
out
in A
rticl
e 8(
3) o
f tha
t di
recti
ve a
re a
pplic
able
.
Last
ly, t
he s
tric
t ci
rcum
scri
ption
of
the
pow
er o
f th
e co
mpe
tent
nati
onal
aut
hori
ties
to d
etai
n an
app
lican
t on
the
bas
is o
f po
int
(e)
of t
he fi
rst
subp
arag
raph
of
Arti
cle
8(3)
of
Dire
ctive
201
3/33
is a
lso
ensu
red
by t
he in
terp
reta
tion
whi
ch t
he c
ase-
law
of
the
Cour
t of
Jus
tice
give
s to
the
co
ncep
ts o
f ‘na
tiona
l sec
urity
’ and
‘pub
lic o
rder
’ fou
nd in
oth
er d
irecti
ves
and
whi
ch a
lso
appl
ies
in th
e ca
se o
f Dire
ctive
201
3/33
.
The
conc
ept o
f ‘pu
blic
ord
er’ e
ntai
ls, i
n an
y ev
ent,
the
exis
tenc
e —
in a
dditi
on to
the
dist
urba
nce
of th
e so
cial
ord
er w
hich
any
infr
inge
men
t of t
he
law
invo
lves
— o
f a g
enui
ne, p
rese
nt a
nd s
uffici
ently
ser
ious
thre
at a
ffecti
ng o
ne o
f the
fund
amen
tal i
nter
ests
of s
ocie
ty.
The
conc
ept
of ‘
publ
ic s
ecur
ity’
cove
rs b
oth
the
inte
rnal
sec
urity
of
a M
embe
r St
ate
and
its e
xter
nal
secu
rity
. Co
nseq
uent
ly,
a th
reat
to
the
func
tioni
ng o
f in
stitu
tions
and
ess
entia
l pub
lic s
ervi
ces
and
the
surv
ival
of
the
popu
latio
n, a
s w
ell a
s th
e ri
sk o
f a
seri
ous
dist
urba
nce
to fo
reig
n re
latio
ns o
r to
pea
cefu
l coe
xist
ence
of n
ation
s, o
r a
risk
to m
ilita
ry in
tere
sts,
may
affe
ct p
ublic
sec
urity
.
(see
par
as 5
3-55
, 57,
62,
64-
66, 8
2, o
pera
tive
part
)
3. In
rel
ation
to
natio
nal c
ase-
law
acc
ordi
ng t
o w
hich
the
intr
oduc
tion
of a
n as
ylum
app
licati
on b
y a
pers
on w
ho is
sub
ject
to
a re
turn
dec
isio
n au
tom
atica
lly c
ause
s al
l ret
urn
deci
sion
s th
at m
ay p
revi
ousl
y ha
ve b
een
adop
ted
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f th
at p
roce
dure
to
laps
e, t
he p
rinc
iple
tha
t D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115,
on
com
mon
sta
ndar
ds a
nd p
roce
dure
s in
Mem
ber
Stat
es f
or r
etur
ning
ille
gally
sta
ying
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
als,
mus
t be
eff
ectiv
e re
quire
s th
at a
pro
cedu
re o
pene
d un
der
that
dire
ctive
, in
the
cont
ext
of w
hich
a r
etur
n de
cisi
on, a
ccom
pani
ed, a
s th
e ca
se m
ay b
e, b
y an
ent
ry b
an, h
as b
een
adop
ted,
can
be
resu
med
at
the
stag
e at
whi
ch it
was
inte
rrup
ted,
as
soon
as
the
appl
icati
on fo
r in
tern
ation
al p
rote
ction
w
hich
inte
rrup
ted
it ha
s be
en r
ejec
ted
at fi
rst
inst
ance
. Ind
eed,
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es m
ust
not
jeop
ardi
se t
he a
ttai
nmen
t of
the
obj
ectiv
e w
hich
D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
purs
ues,
nam
ely
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of a
n eff
ectiv
e po
licy
of re
mov
al a
nd re
patr
iatio
n of
ille
gally
sta
ying
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
s.
CJEU
:
El D
ridi,
C-61
/11
PPU
ECtH
R:
Saad
i v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m,
1322
9/03
Nab
il an
d ot
hers
v H
unga
ry,
6211
6/12
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174342&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=573224http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174342&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=573224http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174342&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=573224https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-157392"]}
-
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 9
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
In th
is re
gard
, it f
ollo
ws
both
from
the
duty
of s
ince
re c
oope
ratio
n of
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s, d
eriv
ing
from
Arti
cle
4(3)
TEU
, and
from
the
requ
irem
ents
fo
r eff
ectiv
enes
s re
ferr
ed to
, for
exa
mpl
e, in
reci
tal 4
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
that
the
oblig
ation
impo
sed
on th
e M
embe
r St
ates
by
Arti
cle
8 of
that
di
recti
ve, i
n th
e ca
ses
set o
ut in
Arti
cle
8(1)
, to
carr
y ou
t the
rem
oval
mus
t be
fulfi
lled
as s
oon
as p
ossi
ble.
Tha
t obl
igati
on w
ould
not
be
met
if th
e re
mov
al w
ere
dela
yed
beca
use,
follo
win
g th
e re
jecti
on a
t fir
st in
stan
ce o
f th
e ap
plic
ation
for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on, a
pro
cedu
re s
uch
as t
hat
desc
ribe
d ab
ove
coul
d no
t be
resu
med
at t
he s
tage
at w
hich
it w
as in
terr
upte
d bu
t had
to s
tart
afr
esh.
It fo
llow
s fr
om t
he fo
rego
ing
that
, in
adop
ting
poin
t (e
) of t
he fi
rst
subp
arag
raph
of A
rticl
e 8
of D
irecti
ve 2
013/
33 la
ying
dow
n st
anda
rds
for
the
rece
ption
of
appl
ican
ts f
or in
tern
ation
al p
rote
ction
, whi
ch a
llow
s an
app
lican
t to
be
deta
ined
for
rea
sons
rel
ating
to
the
prot
ectio
n of
nati
onal
se
curi
ty o
r pu
blic
ord
er, t
he E
U le
gisl
atur
e di
d no
t di
sreg
ard
the
leve
l of p
rote
ction
affo
rded
by
the
seco
nd li
mb
of A
rticl
e 5(
1)(f
) of t
he E
urop
ean
Conv
entio
n on
Hum
an R
ight
s: th
at p
rovi
sion
per
mits
the
law
ful d
eten
tion
of a
per
son
agai
nst w
hom
acti
on is
bei
ng ta
ken
with
a v
iew
to d
epor
tatio
n or
ext
radi
tion.
(see
par
as 7
5-78
)
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt fo
r de
tenti
on: 4
3-82
CJEU
Mah
di
C-14
6/14
PPU
05.0
6.20
14
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
014:
1320
Key
wor
ds: W
ritt
en m
easu
re.
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e A
dmin
istr
ative
n sa
d So
fia-g
rad
— B
ulga
ria
conc
erni
ng th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rticl
e 15
of
Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5/EC
.
Sum
mar
y:
1. A
rticl
e 15
(3)
and
(6)
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115/
EC o
n co
mm
on s
tand
ards
and
pro
cedu
res
in M
embe
r St
ates
for
ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly s
tayi
ng t
hird
-co
untr
y na
tiona
ls,
read
in t
he li
ght
of A
rticl
es 6
and
47
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts
of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on,
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as
mea
ning
that
any
dec
isio
n ad
opte
d by
a c
ompe
tent
aut
hori
ty, o
n ex
piry
of t
he m
axim
um p
erio
d al
low
ed fo
r the
initi
al d
eten
tion
of a
third
-cou
ntry
na
tiona
l, on
the
furt
her
cour
se to
take
con
cern
ing
the
dete
ntion
mus
t be
in th
e fo
rm o
f a w
ritt
en m
easu
re th
at in
clud
es th
e re
ason
s in
fact
and
in
law
for
that
dec
isio
n.
The
only
requ
irem
ent e
xpre
ssly
pro
vide
d fo
r in
Artic
le 1
5 of
Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5 as
rega
rds
adop
tion
of a
writt
en m
easu
re is
the
requ
irem
ent s
et o
ut in
pa
ragr
aph
2 th
ereo
f, na
mel
y th
at d
eten
tion
mus
t be
orde
red
in w
riting
with
reas
ons
bein
g gi
ven
in fa
ct a
nd in
law
. The
requ
irem
ent t
hat a
dec
isio
n be
ad
opte
d in
writi
ng m
ust
be u
nder
stoo
d as
nec
essa
rily
cove
ring
all d
ecis
ions
con
cern
ing
exte
nsio
n of
det
entio
n. H
owev
er, t
he p
rovi
sion
s of
Arti
cle
15
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
do n
ot re
quire
the
adop
tion
of a
writt
en m
easu
re c
once
rnin
g th
e pe
riodi
c re
view
s. T
he a
utho
rities
whi
ch c
arry
out
the
revi
ew o
f a
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
’s de
tenti
on a
t reg
ular
inte
rval
s pu
rsua
nt to
the
first
sen
tenc
e of
Arti
cle
15(3
) of t
he d
irecti
ve a
re th
eref
ore
not o
blig
ed, a
t the
tim
e of
eac
h re
view
, to
adop
t an
expr
ess
mea
sure
in w
riting
that
sta
tes
the
fact
ual a
nd le
gal r
easo
ns fo
r tha
t mea
sure
.
Nev
erth
eles
s, if
the
aut
hori
ty d
ealin
g w
ith a
rev
iew
pro
cedu
re a
t th
e en
d of
the
max
imum
per
iod
for
initi
al d
eten
tion
allo
wed
by
Arti
cle
15(5
) of
Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5 ta
kes
a de
cisi
on o
n th
e fu
rthe
r co
urse
to
take
con
cern
ing
the
dete
ntion
, it
is o
blig
ed t
o ad
opt
a w
ritt
en r
easo
ned
deci
sion
. In
such
a c
ase,
the
rev
iew
of
the
dete
ntion
and
the
dec
isio
n on
the
fur
ther
cou
rse
to t
ake
conc
erni
ng t
he d
eten
tion
occu
r in
the
sam
e pr
oced
ural
st
age.
Con
sequ
ently
, tha
t de
cisi
on m
ust
fulfi
l the
req
uire
men
ts o
f A
rticl
e 15
(2)
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115.
It m
ust
also
, in
ever
y ca
se, b
e su
bjec
t to
su
perv
isio
n by
a ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rticl
e 15
(3) o
f tha
t dire
ctive
.
(see
par
as 4
4, 4
7-49
, 52,
ope
rativ
e pa
rt 1
)
2. E
U la
w d
oes n
ot p
recl
ude
natio
nal l
egis
latio
n —
whi
ch a
t the
sam
e tim
e en
sure
s tha
t the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s are
obs
erve
d an
d th
at th
e pr
ovis
ions
of
EU
law
rela
ting
to th
at m
easu
re a
re fu
lly e
ffecti
ve —
from
pro
vidi
ng th
at th
e au
thor
ity w
hich
revi
ews
the
dete
ntion
of a
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
at
reas
onab
le in
terv
als,
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e fir
st s
ente
nce
of A
rticl
e 15
(3) o
f Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5 on
com
mon
sta
ndar
ds a
nd p
roce
dure
s in
Mem
ber
Stat
es f
or r
etur
ning
ille
gally
sta
ying
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
als,
mus
t ad
opt,
on
the
conc
lusi
on o
f ea
ch r
evie
w, a
n ex
pres
s m
easu
re c
onta
inin
g th
e fa
ctua
l and
lega
l rea
sons
justi
fyin
g th
e m
easu
re a
dopt
ed. S
uch
an o
blig
ation
wou
ld a
rise
sol
ely
unde
r na
tiona
l law
.
(see
par
as 5
0, 5
1)
Kadz
oev,
C-3
57/0
9 PP
U
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=153314&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=477204
-
10 — Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
3. A
rticl
e 15
(3) a
nd (6
) of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
on c
omm
on s
tand
ards
and
pro
cedu
res
in M
embe
r St
ates
for
retu
rnin
g ill
egal
ly s
tayi
ng th
ird-c
ount
ry
natio
nals
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng t
hat
the
supe
rvis
ion
that
has
to
be u
nder
take
n by
a ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
dea
ling
with
an
appl
icati
on fo
r ex
tens
ion
of t
he d
eten
tion
of a
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
al m
ust
perm
it th
at a
utho
rity
to
deci
de, o
n a
case
-by-
case
bas
is, o
n th
e m
erits
of
whe
ther
th
e de
tenti
on o
f th
e th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al c
once
rned
sho
uld
be e
xten
ded,
whe
ther
det
entio
n m
ay b
e re
plac
ed w
ith a
less
coe
rciv
e m
easu
re o
r w
heth
er t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
shou
ld b
e re
leas
ed, t
hat
auth
ority
thu
s ha
ving
pow
er t
o ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt t
he fa
cts
stat
ed a
nd e
vide
nce
addu
ced
by th
e ad
min
istr
ative
aut
hori
ty w
hich
has
bro
ught
the
matt
er b
efor
e it,
as
wel
l as
any
fact
s, e
vide
nce
and
obse
rvati
ons
whi
ch m
ay b
e su
bmitt
ed to
th
e ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
in th
e co
urse
of t
he p
roce
edin
gs.
A ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
dec
idin
g up
on a
n ap
plic
ation
for
the
exte
nsio
n of
det
entio
n m
ust
be a
ble
to r
ule
on a
ll re
leva
nt m
atter
s of
fact
and
of l
aw in
or
der
to d
eter
min
e, in
the
light
of t
he re
quire
men
ts a
risi
ng u
nder
Arti
cle
15 o
f Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5, w
heth
er a
n ex
tens
ion
of d
eten
tion
is ju
stifie
d,
whi
ch re
quire
s an
in-d
epth
exa
min
ation
of t
he m
atter
s of
fact
spe
cific
to e
ach
indi
vidu
al c
ase.
Whe
re th
e de
tenti
on th
at w
as in
itial
ly o
rder
ed is
no
long
er ju
stifie
d in
the
ligh
t of
tho
se r
equi
rem
ents
, the
judi
cial
aut
hori
ty h
avin
g ju
risd
ictio
n m
ust
be a
ble
to s
ubsti
tute
its
own
deci
sion
for
that
of
the
adm
inis
trati
ve a
utho
rity
or,
as th
e ca
se m
ay b
e, th
e ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
whi
ch o
rder
ed th
e in
itial
det
entio
n an
d to
take
a d
ecis
ion
on w
heth
er to
or
der a
n al
tern
ative
mea
sure
or t
he re
leas
e of
the
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
con
cern
ed. T
o th
at e
nd, t
he ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
rulin
g on
an
appl
icati
on fo
r ex
tens
ion
of d
eten
tion
mus
t be
able
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt b
oth
the
fact
s st
ated
and
the
evid
ence
add
uced
by
the
adm
inis
trati
ve a
utho
rity
and
any
ob
serv
ation
s th
at m
ay b
e su
bmitt
ed b
y th
e th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al. F
urth
erm
ore,
that
aut
hori
ty m
ust b
e ab
le to
con
side
r any
oth
er e
lem
ent t
hat i
s re
leva
nt fo
r its
dec
isio
n sh
ould
it s
o de
em n
eces
sary
. Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
pow
ers
of t
he ju
dici
al a
utho
rity
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f an
exam
inati
on c
an u
nder
no
circ
umst
ance
s be
con
fined
just
to th
e m
atter
s ad
duce
d by
the
adm
inis
trati
ve a
utho
rity
con
cern
ed.
(see
par
as 6
2, 6
4, o
pera
tive
part
2)
4. A
rticl
e 15
(1) a
nd (6
) of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
on c
omm
on s
tand
ards
and
pro
cedu
res
in M
embe
r St
ates
for
retu
rnin
g ill
egal
ly s
tayi
ng th
ird-c
ount
ry
natio
nals
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as p
recl
udin
g na
tiona
l leg
isla
tion
purs
uant
to w
hich
an
initi
al s
ix m
onth
per
iod
of d
eten
tion
may
be
exte
nded
sol
ely
beca
use
the
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
con
cern
ed h
as n
o id
entit
y do
cum
ents
. It i
s fo
r th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t alo
ne to
und
erta
ke a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent
of t
he fa
cts
and
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
cas
e in
que
stion
in o
rder
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er a
less
coe
rciv
e m
easu
re m
ay b
e ap
plie
d eff
ectiv
ely
to t
hat
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
or
whe
ther
ther
e is
a r
isk
of h
im a
bsco
ndin
g.
(see
par
a. 7
4, o
pera
tive
part
3)
5. A
rticl
e 15
(6)(
a) o
f D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
on c
omm
on s
tand
ards
and
pro
cedu
res
in M
embe
r St
ates
for
ret
urni
ng i
llega
lly s
tayi
ng t
hird
-cou
ntry
na
tiona
ls m
ust
be in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
tha
t a
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
who
has
not
obt
aine
d an
iden
tity
docu
men
t w
hich
wou
ld h
ave
mad
e it
poss
ible
for
him
to
be r
emov
ed f
rom
the
Mem
ber
Stat
e co
ncer
ned
may
be
rega
rded
as
havi
ng d
emon
stra
ted
a la
ck o
f co
oper
ation
with
in
the
mea
ning
of
that
pro
visi
on o
nly
if an
exa
min
ation
of
his
cond
uct
duri
ng t
he p
erio
d of
det
entio
n sh
ows
that
he
has
not
coop
erat
ed in
the
im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he r
emov
al o
pera
tion
and
that
it is
like
ly t
hat
that
ope
ratio
n la
sts
long
er t
han
antic
ipat
ed b
ecau
se o
f tha
t co
nduc
t, a
matt
er
whi
ch fa
lls to
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t.
Furt
herm
ore,
Arti
cle
15(6
) of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
requ
ires
that
, bef
ore
it co
nsid
ers
whe
ther
the
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
al c
once
rned
has
sho
wn
that
he
has
faile
d to
coo
pera
te, t
he a
utho
rity
con
cern
ed s
houl
d be
abl
e to
dem
onst
rate
tha
t th
e re
mov
al o
pera
tion
is la
sting
long
er t
han
antic
ipat
ed,
desp
ite a
ll re
ason
able
effo
rts:
that
mea
ns th
at th
e M
embe
r St
ate
in q
uesti
on s
houl
d ac
tivel
y be
see
king
to s
ecur
e th
e is
sue
of id
entit
y do
cum
ents
fo
r th
e th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al.
Thus
, in
orde
r to
confi
rm th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
te c
once
rned
has
mad
e re
ason
able
effo
rts
to c
arry
out
the
rem
oval
ope
ratio
n an
d th
at th
ere
is a
lack
of
coo
pera
tion
on t
he p
art
of t
he t
hird
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
con
cern
ed, a
det
aile
d ex
amin
ation
of
the
fact
ual m
atter
s re
latin
g to
the
who
le o
f th
e in
itial
det
entio
n pe
riod
is n
eces
sary
. Suc
h an
exa
min
ation
is a
que
stion
of f
act w
hich
falls
out
side
the
juri
sdic
tion
of th
e Co
urt i
n pr
ocee
ding
s un
der
Arti
cle
267
TFEU
and
is a
matt
er fo
r th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt.
(see
par
as 8
3-85
, ope
rativ
e pa
rt 4
)
-
Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 11
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
6. D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
on c
omm
on s
tand
ards
and
pro
cedu
res
in M
embe
r St
ates
for
ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly s
tayi
ng t
hird
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
s m
ust
be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at a
Mem
ber S
tate
can
not b
e ob
liged
to is
sue
an a
uton
omou
s re
side
nce
perm
it, o
r oth
er a
utho
risa
tion
conf
erri
ng a
righ
t to
sta
y, t
o a
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
who
has
no
iden
tity
docu
men
ts a
nd h
as n
ot o
btai
ned
such
doc
umen
tatio
n fr
om h
is c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
, aft
er
a na
tiona
l cou
rt h
as r
elea
sed
the
pers
on c
once
rned
on
the
grou
nd t
hat
ther
e is
no
long
er a
rea
sona
ble
pros
pect
of r
emov
al w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Arti
cle
15(4
) of t
hat
dire
ctive
. How
ever
, tha
t M
embe
r St
ate
mus
t, in
suc
h a
case
, pro
vide
the
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
al w
ith w
ritt
en c
onfir
mati
on
of h
is s
ituati
on.
(see
par
a. 8
9, o
pera
tive
part
5)
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt to
det
entio
n: 3
7-74
.
CJEU
Ars
lan
C534
/11
30.0
5.20
13
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
013:
343
Key
wor
ds: T
he re
turn
s di
recti
ve.
Judg
men
t aft
er a
ref
eren
ce fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om t
he N
ejvy
šší s
práv
ní s
oud
— C
zech
Rep
ublic
con
cern
ing
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Arti
cle
2(1)
of
Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5/EC
.
Sum
mar
y:
2. A
rticl
e 2(
1) o
f Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5 on
com
mon
sta
ndar
ds a
nd p
roce
dure
s in
Mem
ber S
tate
s fo
r ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly s
tayi
ng th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
als,
re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
rec
ital 9
in t
he p
ream
ble,
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng t
hat
that
dire
ctive
doe
s no
t ap
ply
to a
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
al
who
has
app
lied
for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Dire
ctive
200
5/85
on
min
imum
sta
ndar
ds o
n pr
oced
ures
in M
embe
r St
ates
fo
r gr
antin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
, dur
ing
the
peri
od fr
om th
e m
akin
g of
the
appl
icati
on to
the
adop
tion
of th
e de
cisi
on a
t firs
t ins
tanc
e on
tha
t ap
plic
ation
or,
as t
he c
ase
may
be,
unti
l the
out
com
e of
any
acti
on b
roug
ht a
gain
st t
hat
deci
sion
is k
now
n. It
is c
lear
ly a
ppar
ent
from
the
w
ordi
ng, s
chem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctive
s 20
05/8
5 an
d 20
08/1
15 t
hat
an a
sylu
m s
eeke
r, in
depe
nden
tly o
f th
e gr
antin
g of
a r
esid
ence
per
mit,
w
hich
, und
er A
rticl
e 7(
1) o
f Dire
ctive
200
5/85
is le
ft to
the
disc
retio
n of
eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te, h
as th
e ri
ght t
o re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of t
he M
embe
r St
ate
conc
erne
d at
leas
t unti
l his
app
licati
on h
as b
een
reje
cted
at fi
rst i
nsta
nce,
and
can
not t
here
fore
be
cons
ider
ed to
be
‘ille
gally
sta
ying
’ with
in
the
mea
ning
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115,
whi
ch re
late
s to
his
rem
oval
from
that
terr
itory
.
(see
par
as 4
8, 4
9, o
pera
tive
part
1)
3. D
irecti
ves
2003
/9 la
ying
dow
n m
inim
um s
tand
ards
for
the
rece
ption
of a
sylu
m s
eeke
rs a
nd 2
005/
85 o
n m
inim
um s
tand
ards
on
proc
edur
es in
M
embe
r Sta
tes
for
gran
ting
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us d
o no
t pre
clud
e a
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
who
has
app
lied
for
inte
rnati
onal
pro
tecti
on
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Dire
ctive
200
5/85
aft
er h
avin
g be
en d
etai
ned
unde
r Arti
cle
15 o
f Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5 on
com
mon
sta
ndar
ds a
nd p
roce
dure
s in
Mem
ber
Stat
es fo
r re
turn
ing
illeg
ally
sta
ying
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
als
from
bei
ng k
ept
in d
eten
tion
on t
he b
asis
of
a pr
ovis
ion
of n
ation
al la
w,
whe
re it
app
ears
, aft
er a
n as
sess
men
t on
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
basi
s of
all
the
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
s, t
hat
the
appl
icati
on w
as m
ade
sole
ly t
o de
lay
or
jeop
ardi
se th
e en
forc
emen
t of t
he re
turn
dec
isio
n an
d th
at it
is o
bjec
tivel
y ne
cess
ary
to m
aint
ain
dete
ntion
to p
reve
nt th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed fr
om
perm
anen
tly e
vadi
ng h
is re
turn
.
Alth
ough
Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5 is
not
app
licab
le d
urin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
in w
hich
an
appl
icati
on fo
r as
ylum
is e
xam
ined
, tha
t do
es n
ot m
ean
that
the
re
turn
pro
cedu
re is
the
reby
defi
nitiv
ely
term
inat
ed, a
s it
may
con
tinue
if t
he a
pplic
ation
for
asy
lum
is r
ejec
ted.
The
obj
ectiv
e of
tha
t di
recti
ve,
nam
ely
the
effec
tive
retu
rn o
f ille
gally
sta
ying
thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
ation
als,
wou
ld b
e un
derm
ined
if it
wer
e im
poss
ible
for
Mem
ber
Stat
es t
o pr
even
t th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed fr
om a
utom
atica
lly s
ecur
ing
rele
ase
by m
akin
g an
app
licati
on fo
r as
ylum
.
How
ever
, the
mer
e fa
ct th
at a
n as
ylum
see
ker,
at th
e tim
e of
the
mak
ing
of h
is a
pplic
ation
, is
the
subj
ect o
f a re
turn
dec
isio
n an
d is
bei
ng d
etai
ned
on th
e ba
sis
of A
rticl
e 15
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115
does
not
allo
w it
to b
e pr
esum
ed, w
ithou
t an
asse
ssm
ent o
n a
case
-by-
case
bas
is o
f all
the
rele
vant
ci
rcum
stan
ces,
tha
t he
has
mad
e th
at a
pplic
ation
sol
ely
to d
elay
or
jeop
ardi
se t
he e
nfor
cem
ent
of t
he r
etur
n de
cisi
on a
nd t
hat
it is
obj
ectiv
ely
nece
ssar
y an
d pr
opor
tiona
te to
mai
ntai
n de
tenti
on.
(see
par
as 6
0, 6
2, 6
3, o
pera
tive
part
2)
Para
grap
hs re
leva
nt to
det
entio
n: 4
0-63
.
Kadz
oev,
C-3
57/0
9 PP
U
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=137831&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=89051
-
12 — Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teKe
y w
ords
/rel
evan
ce/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses
cite
d
CJEU
N.S
. and
oth
ers
Join
ed c
ases
C-4
11/1
0 an
d C-
493/
10
21.1
2.20
11
ECLI
:EU
:C:2
011:
865
Key
wor
ds: S
yste
mic
defi
cien
cies
, ris
k of
inhu
man
or
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent.
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a p
relim
inar
y ru
ling
from
the
Cour
t of A
ppea
l (En
glan
d &
Wal
es) (
Civi
l Div
isio
n) (U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m) a
nd th
e H
igh
Cour