Hardeker (C-182/26 PPU)
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
CJEU case. Subject matter: Borders, asylum and immigration.
What the court decided
The Court (Fourth Chamber, judgment of 25 June 2026, ECLI:EU:C:2026:518) interpreted Articles 3(3), 5 and 15 of Directive 2008/115 read with Articles 6, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter. A national court reviewing the lawfulness of detention of an irregularly-staying third-country national for the purpose of removal is NOT required to examine whether non-refoulement was taken into account when the return decision was adopted, even where that return decision was never judicially reviewed. However, where the return decision names three potential countries of return (because of the person's lack of cooperation), the court must, if necessary of its own motion, assess the lawfulness of the detention against the non-refoulement principle on the basis of available data; that principle is regarded as respected so long as it does not preclude removal to at least one of the listed potential destination countries.
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.