Case C-519/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Proceedings against K (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Directive 2008/115/EC — Detention for the purpose of removal — Article 16(1) — Direct effect — Specialised detention facility — Concept — Detention in prison accommodation — Conditions — Article 18 — Emergency situation — Concept — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial review)
Date: 2022-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, direct applicability, illegal migration, imprisonment, judicial review, penal institution, primacy of EU law, prison system, removal, right to justice








C_2022171EN.01001201.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Proceedings against K
(Case C-519/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Directive 2008/115/EC - Detention for the purpose of removal - Article 16(1) - Direct effect - Specialised detention facility - Concept - Detention in prison accommodation - Conditions - Article 18 - Emergency situation - Concept - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial review)
(2022/C 171/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Person concerned: K

Other party to the proceedings: Landkreis Gifhorn

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 16(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a specific division of a prison facility which, first, while having its own director, is subject to the management of that establishment and is subject to the authority of the minister who has authority over prison facilities and in which, second, third-country nationals are detained, for the purpose of removal, in specific buildings which have their own facilities and are isolated from other buildings in that division in which those with a criminal conviction are held, may be regarded as a ‘specialised detention facility’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the conditions of detention applicable to those nationals avoid, as much as possible, that detention resembling detention in a prison environment and provided that they are designed in such a way that the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights enshrined in Article 16(2) to (5) and Article 17 of that directive are respected.










2.


Article 18 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which is called upon, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to order the detention or an extension of the detention, in a prison facility, of a third-country national for the purpose of removal must be able to verify compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 18 of that directive under which it is possible for a Member State to provide that that national is to be detained in a prison facility.










3.


Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court must disapply legislation of a Member State which makes it possible, on a temporary basis, for illegally staying third-country nationals to be detained, for the purpose of their removal, in prison accommodation, separated from ordinary prisoners, where the conditions laid down in Article 18(1) and the second sentence of Article 16(1) of that directive for such national legislation to comply with EU law are not or are no longer satisfied.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.