Judicial Command Of Detention: A Deceptive Upheaval?

Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche

Professor inwards Law

University Jean Moulin Lyon III
Member of the Institut Universitaire de France

Last Th five June 2014, the tertiary Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published its conclusion inwards the Mahdi case (available inwards French together with Bulgarian, but non yet inwards English) that offers 1 to a greater extent than fourth dimension simply about clarification almost the way the so-called Return Directive must last interpreted: it is the 8th fourth dimension the Court of Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has shed simply about lite on simply about provisions of this Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament together with of the Council of 16 December 2008 on mutual standards together with procedures inwards Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals).

In its famous previous cases, the Court of Grand Duchy of Luxembourg answered preliminary questions concerning the Directive. Although the Italian Tribunale di Rovigo asked the CJEU to translate many dissimilar provisions of the Return Directive inwards the Sagor example (CJEU, 6 Dec 2013, C-430/11), the referring national judges inwards the other cases asked questions on a specific provision of the Directive: Article ii inwards the Arslan example (CJEU, xxx May 2013, C-534/11); Article 8 inwards the Achughbabian example (CJEU, 6 Dec 2011, C-319/11); Article 12 inwards the Filev & Osmani case (CJEU, nineteen September 2013, C-297/12); together with Article xv inwards the Kadzoev example (CJEU, 10 Nov 2009, C-357/09 PPU), inwards the El Dridi case (CJEU, 28 Apr 2011, C-61/11 PPU), together with inwards the G. & R. example (CJEU, 10 September 2013, C-383/13).

The  interpretation of the same provision was 1 time again at stake inwards terminal week’s Mahdi judgment: the Bulgarian guess (Administrativen lamentable Sofia-grad) asked numerous detailed questions to the CJEU concerning Article xv of the Return Directive, specially its paragraphs 3 together with 6, inwards the lite of Articles 6 together with 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It should last noted that the French judges that receive got lately decided to remain their proceedings together with to mention to the Court of Justice for preliminary rulings on the Directive, powerfulness last inspired past times the way such a Bulgarian courtroom addressed its questions. Actually, the requests for a preliminary ruling the Tribunal de grande example de Bayonne lodged on xv Apr 2013 in the Raquel Gianni Da Silva v. Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques case (C-189/13) together with the Tribunal administratif de Pau lodged on 6 May 2013 inwards the Khaled Boudjlida v. Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques example (C-249/13) look to last rather vague together with elusive, so much so nosotros tin give the axe wonder whether the Court volition last able to give simply about unequivocal answers that would effectively force the French juridical monastic say to last inwards conformity amongst the Return Directive provisions.

The Mahdi example concerns a Sudanese national, who was arrested inwards Republic of Bulgaria for non possessing a valid identity document, together with against whom a provide conclusion (see Article 8 of the Return Directive) together with an entry ban (see Article xi of the Return Directive) were issued. Being detained inwards the detention optic of Busmansti inwards monastic say to permit the Bulgarian direction organize together with continue to his removal, Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi agreed initially to do goodness from a voluntary divergence (see Article seven of the Return Directive), earlier refusing such a solution. Meanwhile, the Sudanese government refused to deliver M. Madhi the needed move documents, so the manager of the Busmantsi detention optic (direktor na Direktsia «Migratsia» pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti) proposed that he last released (see Article xv § iv of the Return Directive) together with subjected to a less coercive stair out instead of detention (see Article xv § 1 of the Return Directive).

Nevertheless, the national administrative hierarchy opposed the proffer of the detention optic director. Thus Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi remained inwards the Busmansti center, during all the outset menstruum of detention that cannot terminal to a greater extent than than 6 months (see Article xv § five of the Return Directive). At the expiration of such a period, the detention optic manager asked the administrative guess (Administrativen lamentable Sofia-grad) to extend the detention menstruum (see Article xv § 6 of the Return Directive), because of the lack of cooperation M. Mahdi showed together with the difficulties the direction encountered inwards obtaining the necessary documentation from the Sudanese ones. As discussed below, these are the exclusively grounds inwards the Directive for a possible extension of immigration detention of a third-country national (TCN) beyond 6 months.

The Bulgarian administrative guess did non reply to positively to the direction demand; instead he sent a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU equally he wondered how paragraphs 3 together with 6 of Article xv of Directive 2008/115/EC had to last understood. The outset of these provisions states: “In every case, detention shall last reviewed at reasonable intervals of fourth dimension either on application past times the third-country national concerned or ex officio. In the example of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall last dependent champaign to the supervision of a judicial authority”. The 2nd provision states: “Member States may non extend the [six-month] menstruum referred to inwards paragraph five except for a express menstruum non exceeding a farther twelve months inwards accordance amongst national police line inwards cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal functioning is probable to terminal longer owing to: (a) a lack of cooperation past times the third-country national concerned, or (b) delays inwards obtaining the necessary documentation from tertiary countries”.

Actually, all the questions the referring guess addressed to the Court concern the detention of the illegally staying third-country national whose removal is pending (see the view of Advocate General Szpunar Maciej). Four points are dealt past times the CJEU. The outset 1 concerns the formal together with substantial requirements which the conclusion that extends the menstruum of detention must fulfil: fifty-fifty though Article xv § 21 of the Return Directive deals amongst the initial detention conclusion stating that “Detention shall last ordered inwards writing amongst reasons existence given inwards fact together with inwards law”, the Court of Justice asserts that such requirements also receive got to last satisfied past times the afterwards decisions that extend the detention of the illegally staying third-country national.

The Madhi conclusion also deals amongst 3 other points that must last emphasised: 1) the intensity of judicial command of the conclusion that extends the detention period; 2) the reasons why the TCN is detained together with remains inwards detention; 3) the issuing of a residence authorization when at that spot is no reasonable prospect of removal.

1 - The intensity of judicial command of the conclusion that extends the detention period

The extension of a detention stair out together with the nature of the command the judicial potency has to exercise on it receive got been the dependent champaign of previous preliminary rulings of the CJEU. In the Arslan example (CJEU, xxx May 2013, C-534/11), it has been asserted that such an exam must rely on “an assessment on a case-by-case footing of all the relevant circumstances” (§ 63). In the G. & R. example (CJUE, 10 September 2013, C-383/13), the CJEU stated that “where the extension of a detention stair out has been decided inwards an administrative physical care for inwards breach of the correct to last heard, the national courtroom responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that extension conclusion may monastic say the lifting of the detention stair out exclusively if it considers, inwards the lite of all of the factual together with legal circumstances of each case, that the infringement at number genuinely deprived the political party relying thereon of the possibility of argument his defense forcefulness better, to the extent that the outcome of that administrative physical care for could receive got been different” (§ 45).

These positions of the CJEU didn’t look to provoke whatsoever juridical earthquakes: the interpretations emphasise outset that the judicial command must last exercised taking into occupation organisation human relationship all the factual together with legal circumstances of the considered example (which sounds quite obvious), together with 2nd that such a command tin give the axe atomic number 82 to an annulment of the administrative conclusion that extends the detention for violating the correct to last heard exclusively if the honour of such a correct would receive got led to a dissimilar resultant (which seems to throttle the significance of the procedural safeguards).

The conclusion the CJEU stated inwards the Madhi example even so clearly enhances the reach of the command which the judicial potency has to exercise upon the administrative conclusion that lengthens the detention of illegally staying TCN against whom removal orders are issued (§ 62). First, the Court doesn’t exclusively assert the judicial potency has to examine the asking for an extension of detention amongst regard to all the factual together with legal circumstances of each case; it also insists upon the demand for the judicial potency to receive got into occupation organisation human relationship “all” the circumstances, including fifty-fifty the circumstances which the administrative potency did non transmit or present.

Second, the Court states that the judicial potency tin give the axe non exclusively turn down the extension of the detention, but also tin give the axe create upwards one's hear that the illegally staying TCN must instead last the dependent champaign of a less coercive measure. This betoken is specially of import because inwards Republic of Bulgaria (and inwards French Republic too), the guess doesn’t exercise a amount command over the detention extension measure.

However, the Court’s judgment is less constructive equally regards to the appreciation of the reasons why an illegally staying TCN tin give the axe last detained together with remain inwards detention.

2 - The reasons why the TCN is detained together with remains inwards detention

According to the CJEU inwards the Mahdi case, the fact that the individual concerned does non receive got a valid identity document does non justify the lengthening of detention , together with does non constitute past times itself a ‘risk of absconding’, which is 1 of the grounds for detaining that individual initially (§ 69). Nonetheless, the Court leaves the national guess gratis to receive got into occupation organisation human relationship such an chemical constituent to create upwards one's hear upon the extension of detention. This is disappointing because a ‘risk of absconding’ is 1 of the grounds to detain asylum-seekers nether the ‘Dublin’ rules together with the EU’s reception Directive, so though this powerfulness atomic number 82 to a violation of the international together with European rules which recognize together with guarantee the correct of asylum (compare Article xv § 1 of the Return Directive to Article 28 of Regulation (EU) n°604/2013 of the European Parliament together with of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria together with mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged inwards 1 of the Member States past times a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) and Article 8 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament together with of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying downward standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast)). Moreover, inwards simply about countries (such equally France) asylum-seekers are treated equally irregular migrants (and so are dependent champaign to the Returns Directive equally such) because of a long delay inwards recognizing an application for asylum.

It is amongst impatience together with anxiety that nosotros await for the preliminary ruling the CJEU volition give inwards the Z. Zh. example (C-554/13),  in which the Court volition reply simply about questions sent past times the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 almost the way the ‘risk of absconding’ tin give the axe last or must last defined.

The clarification which the CJEU gave inwards the Sagor example (CJEU, 6 Dec 2013, C-430/11) that the adventure of absconding must last assessed on the footing of “an private examination” of the TCN’s example (§ 41) is indeed genuinely insufficient to frame the practices the Member States which receive got developed to widen the notion excessively: for instance, the French police line – Article 39 of the Loi n° 2011-672 relative à l’immigration, à l’intégration et à la nationalité – claims that at that spot is a adventure of absconding that justifies detention together with the refusal of a menstruum of voluntary divergence equally inwards ix dissimilar situations, 6 of which do non seem inwards conformity amongst the European Union law.

If the adventure of absconding tin give the axe justify the initial detention of an illegally staying TCN, his/her lack of cooperation (as nosotros receive got seen above) tin give the axe justify the conclusion to detain him orher for to a greater extent than than 6 months. The Madhi example offered the CJEU the chance to clarify the pregnant of the phrase “a lack of cooperation past times the third-country national concerned” (Article xv § 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC) inwards this context. The province of affairs of Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi is quite clear: he did non grip whatsoever valid identity document when he was arrested together with he did obtain such a document from his national province government afterwards. Can such a province of affairs last considered equally a lack of cooperation past times Mr. Mahdi?

The reply of the Court could receive got been to a greater extent than neat together with clear. Indeed, the CJEU avoids the problem, asserting that it is non competent to examine the facts of the case, together with that exclusively the national guess tin give the axe reply such a question, equally far equally it is a inquiry of fact. However, the Court does educate 1 interesting betoken which must last emphasised: “a lack of cooperation past times the third-country national concerned” tin give the axe resultant exclusively from the demeanor of the TCN, insofar that the delays together with difficulties his/her national province demonstrates inwards delivering the documentation necessary for his/her removal cannot last blamed upon him or her (§ 85).

3 - The issuing of a residence authorization when at that spot is no reasonable prospect of removal

Do national government receive got to number of a residence authorization to the illegally staying TCN when at that spot is no reasonable prospect for his/her removal? On this point, the CJEU’s seat is fifty-fifty to a greater extent than deceptive. The Court concedes the possibility for the Member States to turn down a legal residence to unremovable TCNs, thence maintaining them inwards a precarious irregular legal condition (we tin give the axe retrieve hither of the French police line that makes a quite cryptic distinction betwixt the “droit au séjour” (right to reside) together with the “maintien sur le territoire” (right to remain on national territory)).

Admittedly, the provide Directive deals amongst the removal measures issued against illegally staying TCNs, non amongst the residence carte du jour offered to such TCNs if they cannot last removed. But somehow, the CJEU does non confirm the seat the Commission has asserted since the negotiations of the Return Directive began: that European Union police line offers a uncomplicated option betwixt proceeding to the removal of the irregular migrants or giving them a residence authorization. The inquiry must last asked how much the CJEU’s seat tin give the axe deport on the effectiveness of the provide Directive, since it agency that large numbers of persons volition remain on national territories who cannot last removed, but who do non receive got a fully-fledged correct to reside. Similarly the Court’s insistence that national courts receive got extensive command over detention decisions is undercut past times its willingness to give them a neat bargain of leeway to create upwards one's hear whether someone ought to last initially detained, together with whether that detention tin give the axe last renewed.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Share this post