Case C-146/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2014 — Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti v Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi
Date: 2014-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, embassy, fundamental rights, identity document, illegal migration, imprisonment, interpretation of the law, principle of proportionality, removal, return migration, right to justice, third country








C_2014175EN.01002801.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2014 — Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti v Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi
(Case C-146/14)
2014/C 175/35
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Defendant: Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals, in conjunction with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to a judicial review and effective [legal protection], to be interpreted as meaning that:






a)


where an administrative authority is obliged under the national law of a Member State to conduct a monthly review of detention without there being an express obligation to take administrative action and where it has to submit to the court ex officio a list of third-country nationals detained beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum length of the initial detention due to obstacles to removal, the administrative authority is obliged, on the expiry of the period laid down in the individual decision to detain for the first time, to either pronounce an express detention review measure having regard to the grounds for an extension of detention provided for under European (‘EU’) law or to release the person in question?










b)


where the national law of the Member State provides for the courts to have the power, on the expiry of the maximum period for initial detention laid down under national law, to order an extension of the period of detention for removal purposes, to replace the same with a less coercive measure or to order the release of the third-country national, the court is obliged in a situation such as that in the main proceedings to examine the legality of a detention review measure that gives the legal and factual reasons for the need to extend the period of detention and the length thereof by deciding on the merits on the continuation of detention, its replacement or the release of the person in question?










c)


it permits the court, having regard to the grounds for an extension of detention provided for under EU law, to examine the legality of a detention review measure that only gives reasons for which the decision to remove a third-country national cannot be implemented, by deciding the merits of the dispute in a decision on the continuation of detention, its replacement or the release of the person in question solely on the basis of facts stated and evidence adduced by the administrative authority and facts and objections stated by the third-country national?














2.


Is Article 15(1) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted, in a situation such as that pertaining in the main proceedings, as meaning that the autonomous reason for extending detention provided for under national law, namely that ‘the person in question (…) [has] no identity documents’, is permissible from the point of view of EU law as subsumable under both cases in Article 15(6) of the directive where, under the national law of the Member State, due to the said circumstances it can be assumed that there is reason to believe that the person in question will attempt to circumvent implementation of the removal decision, which in turn presents a risk of absconding within the meaning of the law of that Member State?










3.


Is Article 15(1)(a) and (b) and Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115, in conjunction with recitals 2 and 13 in the preamble to the directive with regard to respect for the fundamental rights and dignity of third-country nationals and the application of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted in a situation such as that pertaining in the main proceedings as permitting the conclusion that there is a reasonable risk of absconding due to the fact that the person in question has no identity documents, has crossed the state boundary illegally and has said that he will not return to his country of origin, even though he has previously completed a statement as to his voluntary return and provided correct details of his identity, when these circumstances fall within the concept of a ‘risk of absconding’ in the case of the addressee of a return decision within the meaning of the directive, which is defined under national law as reason to believe, based on the facts, that the person in question will attempt to circumvent implementation of the return decision?










4.


Is Article 15(1)(a) and (b) and Article 15(4) and (6) of Directive 2008/115, in conjunction with recitals 2 and 13 in the preamble to the directive with regard to respect for the fundamental rights and dignity of third-country nationals and the application of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted in a situation such as that pertaining in the main proceedings as meaning that:






a)


the third-country national does not demonstrate cooperation in the preparation of implementation of the decision to return him to his country of origin if he states verbally to an embassy official of that country that he does not wish to return to his country of origin even though he has previously completed a statement as to his voluntary return and provided correct details of his identity and there are delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from a third country and there is a reasonable prospect of implementation of the return decision, if in these circumstances the embassy of that country does not issue the document necessary for the person in question to travel to his country of origin even though it has confirmed the identity of the person in question?










b)


in the event of the release of a third-country national on account of the absence of an adequate prospect of implementation of a removal decision where that third-country national has no identity documents, has crossed the state border illegally and states that he does not wish to return to his country of origin, it is to be assumed that the Member State is under an obligation to issue a temporary document on the status of the person in question if the embassy of the country of origin does not in these circumstances issue the document required for the person in question to travel to his country of origin even though it has confirmed the identity of the person in question?










(1)  OJ L 348, p. 98.