Case registered before the CJEU under C-218/25 [Wompou] 

The applicant complained before the District Court of the Hague, seated in Amsterdam, against a custodial measure imposed on him and his placement in the Justitieel Complex Schiphol (Schiphol Judicial Complex; ‘the JCS’) under Article 6(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 6(6) of the Law on foreign nationals. The applicant argued that the JCS is not a specialised detention facility as provided under Article 16 (1) of the Return Directive and as a result the detention measure is unlawful. The Minister argued the contrary and the District Court stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions before the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is a Member State acting in accordance with Article 16 of the Return Directive by routinely using a detention facility where both foreign nationals as referred to in the Return Directive and criminal detainees are held - separately from each other - in different units, and the units are identical in terms of construction and decor and, where necessary, are also interchangeable in practice?

2. Would the answer to the previous question be different if shared facilities were used for both criminal and immigration detention and contact between immigration detainees and criminal detainees could therefore take place? What should be understood by ‘held separately from each other’ in this context? Does that mean that no form of contact is allowed? If not, which forms of contact are allowed?

3. What should be understood by ‘limiting to what is strictly necessary’ for the purpose, as the Court of Justice determined in the Landkreis judgment? Does that mean that if there is no direct relationship between the limitation and the purpose of the detention - an effective preparation for the removal - the limitation is by definition not allowed?

4. If a Member State were allowed to impose additional limitations not directly related to the purpose of the detention, to what should these limitations then adhere, in view of the fact that full respect for the fundamental rights of the foreign national must be guaranteed, in particular the right to human dignity, freedom, private and family life and information as described in Articles 1, 6, 7 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

5. If a Member State were allowed to impose additional limitations not directly related to the purpose of the detention, how should the court review their legality? Is that a comprehensive or a cautious review?

6. What circumstances should the court consider when assessing whether the conditions of detention at the facility are such that they avoid, as much as possible, the detention resembling detention in a prison environment, suitable for detention for punitive purposes?

7. When determining whether a detention facility is specialised, can the court simply compare the way in which immigration detention and criminal detention are organised?

The court asked similar questions in another judgment of the same date Applicant v The Minister for Asylum and Migration (de Minister van Asiel en Migratie), registered before the CJEU under C-217/25 [Wajir].