Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1879

(Case C-26/25, Bukla)

(C/2025/1879)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PQ

Defendants: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal

Questions referred

Must Articles 5, 12 and 13 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 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) (‘the Return Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 7, 24, 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby a Member State adopts a return decision in respect of a third-country national, whose family members (minor children, cohabiting partner) are nationals of a Member State of the European Union and live in that Member State, without previously examining the criteria provided for in Article 5 of the Return Directive and in Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter?

Must Articles 5, 12 and 13 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 24, 51(1) and 52(1) of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby a Member State adopts an immigration decision ordering return on the basis of a non-reasoned proposal by a specialist authority that solely determines there to be a danger or harm to national security, public security or public policy, where that proposal is binding on the immigration authority, authoritative and has been issued without an in-depth examination of whether the grounds of national security, public security or public policy exist in the specific case in question, and without taking into account individual circumstances or the requirements of necessity and proportionality?

Must Articles 5, 12 and 13 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter – and also, where relevant, with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter – be interpreted as meaning that the authority of a Member State which, on grounds of national security, public policy or public security, has adopted a return decision, or the specialist authority which has determined the matter to be confidential, must, at all events, ensure that the third-country national concerned and his or her legal representative are guaranteed the right to know at least the essence of the confidential or classified information and data underpinning the decision adopted on those grounds and to use that information or those data in the proceedings concerning that decision, where the competent authority considers that such disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security?

If the answer is in the affirmative, what precisely must be understood by the ‘essence’ of the confidential grounds on which that decision is based, having regard to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter?

—

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)

OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1879/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—