# C_2023314EN.01000201.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2023 — K, L, M and N v Staatssecretaris van Justitie and Veiligheid

(Case C-156/23, Ararat (1))

(2023/C 314/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: K, L, M and N

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie and Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5 of the Return Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority must establish ex officio that the principle of non-refoulement has not been complied with on the basis of the information in the file brought to its attention and as supplemented or clarified in the adversarial proceedings brought before it? Does the scope of that obligation depend on whether the adversarial proceedings were initiated with an application for international protection, and is the scope of that obligation therefore different where a refoulement risk is assessed in the context of admission or in the context of return? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5 of the Return Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority must establish ex officio that the principle of non-refoulement has not been complied with on the basis of the information in the file brought to its attention and as supplemented or clarified in the adversarial proceedings brought before it? Does the scope of that obligation depend on whether the adversarial proceedings were initiated with an application for international protection, and is the scope of that obligation therefore different where a refoulement risk is assessed in the context of admission or in the context of return?

| 2. | Is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a return decision is issued in proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, the question whether or not the refoulement prohibition precludes return must be examined before the issue of a return decision and does an established refoulement risk then preclude the imposition of a return decision or is an established refoulement risk in that situation an obstacle to removal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a return decision is issued in proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, the question whether or not the refoulement prohibition precludes return must be examined before the issue of a return decision and does an established refoulement risk then preclude the imposition of a return decision or is an established refoulement risk in that situation an obstacle to removal?

| 3. | Is a return decision revived if that return decision has been suspended because of new proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, or is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the refoulement risk has not been assessed in the proceedings leading to the renewed finding of illegal residence, a current assessment of the refoulement risk should follow and a new return decision should be imposed? Is the answer to that question different if there is no suspended return decision but a return decision which has not been complied with by the third-country national and the authorities for a prolonged period of time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a return decision revived if that return decision has been suspended because of new proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, or is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the refoulement risk has not been assessed in the proceedings leading to the renewed finding of illegal residence, a current assessment of the refoulement risk should follow and a new return decision should be imposed? Is the answer to that question different if there is no suspended return decision but a return decision which has not been complied with by the third-country national and the authorities for a prolonged period of time?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  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 (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---