Case C-218/25, Wompou: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 20 March 2025 – BC v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Date: 2025-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: detention before trial, fundamental rights, illegal migration, imprisonment, judicial review, legality, penal institution, prisoner, removal, right to information








C_202502846EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2846


2.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 20 March 2025 – BC v Minister van Asiel en Migratie


(Case C-218/25, Wompou)
                (1)

(C/2025/2846)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BC

Defendant: Minister van Asiel en Migratie

Questions referred







1.


Is a Member State acting in accordance with Article 16 of the Return Directive (2) by routinely using a detention facility where both foreign nationals as referred to in the Return Directive and criminal detainees are held – separately from each other – in different units, and the units are identical in terms of construction and decor and, where necessary, are also interchangeable in practice?










2.


Would the answer to the previous question be different if shared facilities were used for both criminal and immigration detention and contact between immigration detainees and criminal detainees could therefore take place? What should be understood by ‘held separately from each other’ in this context? Does that mean that no form of contact is allowed? If not, which forms of contact are allowed?










3.


What should be understood by ‘limiting to what is strictly necessary’ for the purpose, as the Court of Justice determined in the Landkreis judgment? (3) Does that mean that if there is no direct relationship between the limitation and the purpose of the detention – an effective preparation for the removal – the limitation is by definition not allowed?










4.


If a Member State were allowed to impose additional limitations not directly related to the purpose of the detention, to what should these limitations then adhere, in view of the fact that full respect for the fundamental rights of the foreign national must be guaranteed, in particular the right to human dignity, freedom, private and family life and information as described in Articles 1, 6, 7 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










5.


If a Member State were allowed to impose additional limitations not directly related to the purpose of the detention, how should the court review the legality of those? Is that a comprehensive or a cautious review?










6.


What circumstances should the court consider when assessing whether the conditions of detention at the facility are such that they avoid, as much as possible, the detention resembling detention in a prison environment, suitable for detention for punitive purposes?










7.


When determining whether a detention facility is specialised, can the court simply compare the way in which immigration detention and criminal detention are organised?






(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).

(3)  Case C-519/20, Landkreis Gifhorn.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2846/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)