Policie CR, Krajske reditelstvi policie Usteckeho kraje, odbor cizinecke policie v Al Chodor and Others: ECJ 15 Mar 2017

Police detention of Immigrants to follow rules

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) – Article 28(2) – Detention for the purpose of transfer – Article 2(n) – Significant risk of absconding – Objective criteria – Absence of a legal definition
A family of Iraqi nationals, the Al Chodors, who were stopped by police in the Czech Republic and interviewed. They claimed to be of Kurdish origin and it emerged that they had travelled to the Czech Republic via Turkey, Greece and then Hungary, where they had claimed asylum. The Foreigners Police Section of the Czech police force decided to place the family in detention pending their transfer to Hungary under the Dublin system. They took the view, for perfectly sensible reasons, that there was a serious risk that, unless detained, the Al Chodors would abscond before their transfer. The relevant Czech legislation conferred on the police force the power to detain a foreign national who had entered the Czech Republic illegally for the period of time necessary to secure the transfer of that person in accordance with, among other measures, the Dublin III Regulation. Upon a challenge by the Al Chodors, the Czech Regional Court annulled the decision to detain on the basis that the objective criteria for assessing the risk of absconding were not defined by Czech legislation as required by article 2(n) of the Regulation. The police force then brought an appeal on a point of law before the Supreme Administrative Court, which made the reference to the CJEU. The referring court asked, in substance, whether articles 2(n) and 28(2) of the Dublin III Regulation require member states to establish, in a national law, objective criteria underlying the reasons for believing that an applicant for international protection who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond, and whether the absence of those criteria in a national law leads to the inapplicability of article 28(2).

ECLI:EU:C:2017:213, [2017] EUECJ C-528/15, [2017] WLR(D) 184, [2017] 3 CMLR 24, ECLI:EU:C:2016:865
Bailii, WLRD
Cited by:
CitedHemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
AppliedHemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 4-Oct-2018
Conjoined hearing of appeals in respect of three judgments covering the cases of five individual immigrants who were placed in detention for periods pending possible removal to other EU Member States pursuant to the asylum claim arrangements under . .
CitedLehman Brothers International (Europe) v Exotix Partners Llp ChD 9-Sep-2019
The parties had contracted to trade global depository notes issued by the Peruvian government. Each made mistakes as to their true value, thinking them scraps worth a few thousand dollars, whereas their true value was over $8m. On the defendant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Police

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.580691