Case C-217/25, Wajir: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 20 March 2025 – DA v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Date: 2025-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, freedom of self-determination, imprisonment, international protection, legality, penal institution, prison system, protection of privacy, right to information








C_202502845EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2845


2.6.2025






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


(Case C-217/25, Wajir)
                (1)

(C/2025/2845)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DA

Defendant: Minister van Asiel en Migratie

Questions referred







1.


Do the same standards/conditions apply to the qualification of ‘specialised detention facilities’ (‘gespecialiseerde bewaringsaccommodaties’) within the meaning of Article 10 of the Reception Conditions Directive (2) as to ‘specialised detention facilities’ (‘speciale inrichtingen voor bewaring’) as referred to in Article 16 of the Return Directive, (3) or do the standards/conditions for qualifying as ‘specialised detention facilities’ as referred to in the Return Directive apply as a minimum for the ‘specialised detention facilities’ as referred to in the Reception Conditions Directive?
If those standards/conditions apply as a minimum, which additional standards/conditions apply?










2.


Is a Member State acting in accordance with Article 10 of the Reception Conditions Directive by routinely using a detention facility where both applicants as referred to in the Reception Conditions 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?










3.


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?










4.


What should be understood by ‘limiting to what is strictly necessary’ for the purpose, as the Court of Justice determined in the Landkreis judgment? (4) Does that mean that if there is no direct relationship between the limitation and the purpose of the detention – the prevention of illegal entry – the limitation is by definition not allowed?










5.


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?










6.


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?










7.


What must be understood by open-air spaces? What requirements should the space(s) satisfy?










8.


Should Article 10(2) of the Reception Conditions Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not permitted to limit access to open-air spaces?
If a Member State is permitted to limit access to open-air spaces, what conditions should then be attached to the limitation, in view of the fact that the human dignity and full respect of the fundamental rights of the foreign national must be guaranteed, including the right to human dignity and freedom as referred to in Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










9.


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?










10.


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










11.


Should Article 11(5) of the Reception Conditions Directive be interpreted as prohibiting a policy by which male and female foreign nationals are required to share all (recreational) spaces within the same closed unit, even if the unit has a lockable cell which is shared only with persons of the same sex (with the exception of family members)?










12.


What should be understood by ‘as short a period as possible’ as referred to in Article 9(1) of the Reception Conditions Directive with regard to the judicial proceedings phase? What facts and/or circumstances play a role in the assessment of that period?






(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 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).

(3)  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).

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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2845/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)