EU court adviser backs lifetime entry bans in terrorism cases

(CN) — People expelled from the European Union usually can’t reenter for five years, but a legal adviser to the bloc’s top court said Thursday that in terrorism cases the clock can stop ticking, allowing governments to impose indefinite bans if they follow strict safeguards.

The case began after a Russian man, known only as DT, was expelled from Germany in 2017 and blocked from returning. He was living in Bremen when authorities ordered his removal, citing intelligence that he might commit a terrorist attack. He was deported to Russia on short notice without the usual hearing. In 2022, officials formally imposed an indefinite entry ban, confirming he would not be allowed back. Nearly a decade later, the restriction remains in place under German law.

DT argued that EU law requires countries to specify how long a person is banned from reentering and that five years is the standard cap. A lower German court agreed and struck down the indefinite ban, but officials in Bremen appealed, sending the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.

On Thursday, Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour said an indefinite ban may be justified, but only if authorities follow clear procedures and assess each case individually.

In his advisory opinion, he stressed that EU law permits entry bans with no fixed end date in exceptional national security cases, but this does not give governments a blank check. “A full examination of the situation of the person concerned, on a case-by-case basis, cannot constitute merely an exception,” he wrote.

He said officials must spell out their reasons in writing and make sure any entry ban comes with a real case-by-case review, not just a box to tick, even for people seen as a serious threat.

Basic rights like private and family life still count, he added. Even in national security cases, governments need to show that a lifetime ban is truly necessary and that no less severe option would be enough.

Whether Germany met that standard remains unclear. DT has already spent eight years outside the EU. German authorities told the court they had reviewed his behavior since deportation and his personal ties to Germany, but there was no clear process for him to request a review or shortening of the ban — something Richard de la Tour said should be possible within a reasonable timeframe.

Steve Peers, a professor of EU and human rights law at Royal Holloway, University of London, said the opinion could ease concerns about how migration and security intersect. He noted that “only a minority of member states impose indefinite entry bans at the moment,” but that “if the judgment follows the opinion, more of them might choose to do so, as it will be clear that it is legally permissible.”

Peers also said the safeguards laid out in the opinion, such as individual assessments, judicial review and a right to request a later review, will be essential if such bans can be upheld in court.

The opinion isn’t binding, but the court often goes along with such advice. If it does, DT’s ban could stay in place, but only if the judges find that Germany followed the rules and respected his right to challenge it. Officials in Bremen did not respond to a request for comment.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.