Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond – Netherlands) – GB v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
(Affaire C-313/25 PPU, 1 Adrar 2 )
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Immigration policy – Return of third-country nationals staying illegally in a Member State – Directive 2008/115/EC – Enforcement of a return decision that has become final – Article 5 – Principle of non-refoulement – Best interests of the child – Family life – Article 15 – Detention for the purpose of removal – Review of compliance with the conditions governing lawfulness – Obligation for the national court to review compliance with the principle of non-refoulement and the other interests referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 – Considered of court’s own motion – Articles 6 and 7, Article 19(2), Article 24(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: GB
Defendant: Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Operative part of the judgment
1.    Articles 5 and 15 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, read in conjunction with Article 6, Article 19(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, called upon to review the lawfulness of the detention of an illegally staying third-country national, with a view to his or her removal pursuant to a final return decision, is required to examine, if necessary of its own motion, whether the principle of non-refoulement precludes that removal.
2.    Articles 5 and 15 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7, Article 24(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, called upon to review the lawfulness of the detention of an illegally staying third-country national, with a view to his or her removal pursuant to a final return decision, is required to examine, if necessary of its own motion, whether the best interests of the child and family life, referred to, respectively, in Article 5(a) and (b) of that directive, preclude that removal.
____________
1 OJ C, C/2025/3636.
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.