There is no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity — in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — of point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, which allows an applicant to be detained for reasons relating to the protection of national security or public order.

Given that the objective pursued by that provision is the protection of national security and public order, a measure ordering detention which is based on the provision genuinely meets an objective of general interest recognised by the European Union. In addition, the protection of national security and public order also contributes to the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states in this regard that everyone has the right not only to liberty but also to security of person.

As regards the proportionality of the interference with the right to liberty to which a measure ordering detention gives rise, the detention of an applicant where the protection of national security or public order so requires is, by its very nature, an appropriate measure for protecting the public from the threat which the conduct of such a person represents and is thus suitable for attaining the objective pursued by point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33. Moreover, it is apparent both from the wording and context of Article 8 of Directive 2013/33 and from its legislative history that the possibility — provided for in point (e) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 — of detaining an applicant for reasons relating to the protection of national security or public order is subject to compliance with a series of conditions whose aim is to create a strictly circumscribed framework in which such a measure may be used. In that regard, Article 9(1) of Directive 2013/13 provides that an applicant is to be detained only for as short a period as possible and may be kept in detention only for as long as the grounds set out in Article 8(3) of that directive are applicable.

Lastly, the strict circumscription of the power of the competent national authorities to detain an applicant on the basis of point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33 is also ensured by the interpretation which the case-law of the Court of Justice gives to the concepts of ‘national security’ and ‘public order’ found in other directives and which also applies in the case of Directive 2013/33.

The concept of ‘public order’ entails, in any event, the existence — in addition to the disturbance of the social order which any infringement of the law involves — of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.

The concept of ‘public security’ covers both the internal security of a Member State and its external security. Consequently, a threat to the functioning of institutions and essential public services and the survival of the population, as well as the risk of a serious disturbance to foreign relations or to peaceful coexistence of nations, or a risk to military interests, may affect public security.

(see paras 53-55, 57, 62, 64-66, 82, operative part)