This judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC, also known as the Return Directive, on the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in a Member State. According to the Court, that article must be interpreted in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter.

In the present case, Mr A. is both illegally staying in a Member State and the father of a Belgian child. In May 2018, following an offence, a return decision was issued against him because of the illegal nature of his stay. In that judgment, the Court recalls that, as a matter of principle, the expulsion of a third-country national falls within the scope of Directive 2008/115. However, the best interests of the child are a general rule for Member States when implementing the Directive, in particular in the case of a return decision and an entry ban, as in the present case. Consequently, Article 5 of the Directive cannot be interpreted restrictively, which supports the spirit of Article 24 of the Charter, which seeks to enshrine the interests of the child broadly. Although the return decision is actually issued against the illegally staying parent, it has direct consequences for the child. Thus, even if the return order does not concern the child himself, but his father, the latter cannot be removed.