Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
08/06/2022
DE: The Federal Administrative Court referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU on taking the best interests of the child and family ties into account when issuing a return decision.

ECLI
ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2022:080622B1C24.21.0
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Type
Decision
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
European Convention on Human Rights; Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals)
Reference
Germany, Federal Administrative Court [Bundesverwaltungsgericht], Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), 1 C 24.21, ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2022:080622B1C24.21.0, 08 June 2022. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=2672
Case history
Other information
Abstract

The case concerns a minor Nigerian national who was born in Germany in December 2018 and whose parents have Nigerian nationality. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) issued a ban on removal under Section 60 (5) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR in favor of the applicant’s father and sister (born in 2014). Both were subsequently granted residence permits. The application of the mother and another sister were rejected as unfounded. An application to order the suspensive effect of the case was unsuccessful. Their stay has been tolerated since. BAMF rejected the applicant's application for asylum. The administrative court lifted the removal warning issued and the entry and residence ban. Because of the national ban on removal established with regard to the father of and his sister under Section 60 (5) of the Residence Act, there was a ban on removal under Article 6 of the Basic Law and Article 8 of the ECHR, since the applicant could not reasonably be expected to separate from his father considering his age.


The Senate of the Federal Administrative Court suspended the appeal pending a decision by the CJEU on whether, within the meaning of Article 5 (1 a and b) of the Return Directive, there are substantial reasons which could preclude the issuance of a removal decision.


The question referred to the CJEU is whether Article 5 (1a and b) of the Return  Directive is to be interpreted as precluding the issuance of a return decision against a minor third-country national, jointly with the rejection of his/her application for international protection and setting a departure deadline of 30 days, without exception, if, for legal reasons, neither parent can be returned to the country specified in Article 3 (3) of the Return Directive for an indefinite period of time, and the minor therefore cannot leave the Member State because of his/her family ties, or is it sufficient to take into consideration the best interest of the child and the family ties (within the meaning of Article 1 a and b of the Return Directive) on the basis of the national regulation after the issuance of the return decision by suspending the removal.


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Federal Administrative Court [Bundesverwaltungsgericht]
Case Number
1 C 24.21
Date of Decision
08/06/2022
Country of Origin
Nigeria
Keywords
Family life/family unity
Minor / Best interests of the child
Return/Removal/Deportation
Source
BVerwG