On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C‑26/25 (Bukla) following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Szeged High Court of Hungary (Szegedi Törvényszék). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and Directive 2008/115/EC (the ‘Return Directive’) regarding the adoption of a return decision on national security grounds against a third-country national who is a family member of Union citizens and the procedural safeguards applicable where such decisions are based on classified information.
The Court held that Article 20 TFEU and Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 require Member States, before adopting a return decision concerning a third-country national whose family members are Union citizens, to examine the consequences of that decision for the person’s family life and for the situation of the minor children concerned, where the authorities are aware of the existence of those family ties. It reiterated that they must assess whether a relationship of dependency exists between the third-country national and the Union citizen family members and whether the removal decision would effectively compel the Union citizen to leave the territory of the European Union.
It further held that Article 20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, precludes national rules preventing courts from examining a derived right of residence during return proceedings where the competent authorities are aware of those family ties, including where the relevant facts emerge only during the judicial stage or where the return decision follows a previous refusal of residence.
The Court also clarified that national security risks do not justify the adoption of a return decision solely on the basis of a binding and non-reasoned opinion issued by a specialised national security authority. Under Article 20 TFEU and Articles 5, 12 and 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, the competent authorities must carry out an individual assessment of all relevant circumstances and verify that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality, including its impact on the person’s family life and the best interests of the children concerned.
Regarding classified information, the Court held that Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, Article 20 TFEU, the principle of good administration and Article 47 of the Charter, preclude national legislation preventing a third-country national from being informed of the essence of the grounds underlying a return decision and an entry ban based on confidential information, or from using such information in administrative or judicial proceedings. It clarified that the intervention of a public prosecutor who has access to the classified material but cannot disclose it to the person concerned is not sufficient to safeguard the rights of defence and an effective remedy. However, where disclosure of these grounds would jeopardise national security, such information may be withheld, provided that the national court reviewing the decision can draw the appropriate conclusions from that refusal and ensure effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the measure.