The Respondent, the Netherlands, brought a question before the European Court of Justice regarding the lawfulness of two consecutive detentions placed upon the Applicant, C, who was detained in the Netherlands and placed on trial at the Roermond District Court.
The Applicant, a Moroccan national, travelled from Belgium to the Netherlands by train. The Applicant was found without a valid ticket on board and was subsequently removed and detained. The Applicant stated he had applied for international protection in Spain. The Dutch State Secretary then detained the Applicant under the Dublin III Regulation, which provides that the Member State in which an individual first seeks international protection must take responsibility for that individual.
The Applicant withdrew his international protection application in Spain, and the Spanish authorities, upon notification of this withdrawal, rejected the request to take charge of his application. The Respondent relied on the Dublin III Regulations, according to which Member States may detain a person if there is a significant risk of absconding. Given that the Applicant already left Spain after launching an international protection application, the Respondent determined there was a risk of the Applicant absconding, and detained the Respondent on that basis.
Having accepted the decision of the Spanish authorities, the Dutch State Secretary then adopted a second detention measure on the grounds of Article 15(1) of the Return Directive and arranged for
the Applicant’s return to Morocco. The Respondents immediately lifted the first detention measure (Dublin III Regulations) after implementing the second measure (Return Directive).
The Applicant complained about his detention, and the grounds it was based upon, before the Roermond District Court. He argued that his detention was unlawful, as under the Dublin III Regulation procedure there is a fixed 48-hour threshold within which the State is required to identify another legal ground to legitimize the detention of a person. The Applicant was detained for 72 hours before the Return Directive was implemented. Since the 48-hour threshold was exceeded by 24 hours, a loss of lawfulness of the detention occurred.
Roermond Court sought clarification about the procedural dimension of this dimension before the European Court of Justice. In particular, Roermond Court sought to establish whether the Dublin III Regulation, when taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to liberty and the right to an effective remedy and fair trial), required authorities to release a detained person immediately if that detention becomes unlawful at any time during the continuous implementation of successive detention measures.
The European Court of Justice stressed that the detention of an individual seriously interferes with their right to liberty under Article 6 of the Charter. As such, the power to detain a person is strictly limited. Notwithstanding that, the Court ruled that it is not necessary to release a third-country national detained under the Return Directive even if the previous detention under the Dublin II Regulation was unlawful due to surpassing the 48-hour limit.
The judgment highlights the need to balance the protection of individual rights while ensuring legal clarity. It also stressed that any instance of unlawful detention must be addressed immediately.
Click here to read the full judgment.