A return decision concerning a parent cannot be treated as a routine administrative measure supported only by a general reference to national security. Where the authorities know that a third-country national has children who are Union citizens, they must examine the real family dependency, the consequences for those children, their best interests and the proportionality of the proposed measure. At the same time, the protection of classified information cannot deprive the rights of defence and the right to an effective remedy of their substance.

That is the central line of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, Third Chamber, on 16 July 2026 in Case C-26/25 [Bukla], PQ v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, ECLI:EU:C:2026:593, CELEX:62025CJ0026. The CJEU interpreted EU law. It did not determine the Hungarian action or itself annul the national return decision.

The label [Bukla] is a fictitious name used for the anonymised case and is not the real name of any party. When the official publication was rechecked on 30 August 2026, the judgment still carried the notice “Provisional text”. The analysis below therefore follows the text published at that date and separates the Court's precise ruling from broader conclusions that do not automatically follow from it.

1. The case and the questions before the CJEU

PQ, a third-country national, entered Hungary lawfully in 2005 and lived there with his Hungarian partner. Their two children, born in 2012 and 2021, are Hungarian nationals. According to the facts in the order for reference, the parents held joint parental responsibility, PQ lived permanently with the children, usually acted as their primary carer, and the children had a close emotional bond and a relationship of dependency with him.

A specialist national-security body concluded, in a non-reasoned opinion based on classified information, that his presence adversely affected Hungary's national-security interests. A refusal of a residence application was followed by a return decision and a ten-year ban on entry and stay. The immigration authority considered itself bound by the opinion and unable to make an independent assessment of PQ's personal situation.

The Szeged court asked the CJEU, among other matters, whether such a decision could be adopted without examining family life, whether a binding but unreasoned security opinion was sufficient, what access the person concerned must have to classified material, and whether a lower court remained bound by a higher-court interpretation that it considered incompatible with EU law.

2. What changes when family ties are known

The Court did not require administrative authorities to search systematically, without any indication, for every possible relationship of dependency. The person concerned has a duty of sincere cooperation and should inform the competent authority as soon as possible of relevant developments in family life. Once the authority already knows of a family relationship with a Union citizen, however, it cannot proceed as if that relationship did not exist.

It must, where necessary by gathering the requisite information itself, examine whether the dependency is so strong that the Union citizen would in practice be compelled to accompany the third-country national and leave the territory of the Union as a whole. That inquiry is not satisfied by identifying a formal family link. It considers actual care, cohabitation, emotional and material dependency, the child's age, the role of the other parent and all the individual circumstances.

Where the substantive conditions of Article 20 TFEU are met, the derived right of residence protects the Union citizen's genuine enjoyment of the substance of citizenship rights. This remains a rule for specific situations of real dependency. Being the parent of a child who holds the nationality of a Member State does not, by itself, create an automatic residence entitlement in every case.

The judgment also has a procedural consequence. If the family ties were known to the administration, the person may rely before the national court on the authority's failure to conduct the Article 20 assessment even if that provision was not expressly cited during the administrative procedure. The court must also be able to consider relevant facts first brought to light during the judicial proceedings.

3. Dependency, family life and the child's best interests

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 requires Member States, when implementing return procedures, to take due account of the best interests of the child, family life and the state of health of the person concerned, and to respect the principle of non-refoulement. Those interests and that principle must be considered at every stage, particularly when the return decision is adopted.

Where the proposed measure concerns the parent of a minor, the authorities need a general and in-depth assessment of the child's situation. An adequate administrative file should show who provides daily care, how stability, education and health would be affected, whether the child could realistically remain in the Union with the other parent, and whether removing the parent would in practice compel the child to leave.

The best-interests assessment is neither a stock sentence nor an automatic rule in favour of residence. It is a primary consideration that must be identified through evidence and visibly weighed in the reasons. The authority should explain what it examined, what consequence it anticipates for each child and why it considers the particular measure necessary and proportionate despite those effects.

An earlier refusal of residence does not close the inquiry. The authority must assess the situation as it stands when it deals with return and must take account of relevant new circumstances. It may use earlier findings to avoid restarting the assessment from nothing, but it may not ignore changes or rely exclusively on an old refusal that did not consider Article 20 TFEU at all.

4. National security does not remove individual assessment

EU law allows Member States to protect public policy and national security. A derived right of residence may, under the relevant conditions, be restricted where the person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat. That conclusion still requires a specific assessment of all relevant circumstances, respect for fundamental rights and, where a child is involved, proper consideration of the child's best interests.

Case C-26/25 rejects administrative automation. The authority responsible for return cannot simply implement a binding, non-reasoned opinion from another body where neither that body nor the return authority has rigorously assessed the individual circumstances and proportionality. The words “national security” are not a substitute for evidence, balancing or reasons.

The CJEU did not prohibit input from specialist security bodies, nor did it exclude every binding opinion. A specialist body may supply material and national law may even empower it to issue an opinion requiring a return decision, provided that the body complies with the duty to give reasons and reaches its opinion only after duly considering all relevant circumstances. The allocation of domestic powers remains a national choice; the substantive safeguards remain mandatory.

5. Classified information and the essence of the grounds

Return decisions must normally be issued in writing and give reasons in fact and law. Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/115 permits limits on factual information where national law allows them, particularly to safeguard national security. That power is not an unrestricted licence for silence.

For the defence to be effective, the person must in principle be informed at least of the essence of the grounds on which the measure is based and of the essence of the decisive material, through arrangements that legitimately protect sensitive sources. The information must reach the addressee of the decision. It is not enough that only a judge, a prosecutor, or a lawyer who is forbidden to communicate anything useful to the client sees it.

Access to the file forms part of the rights of defence in both the administrative and judicial phases, but it is not absolute. Specific material may be withheld where disclosure would directly and specifically jeopardise State security, for example by endangering the life, health or freedom of individuals, revealing particular investigative methods, or seriously obstructing future security work.

In an exceptional case, the competent body may conclude that even disclosing the essence would put national security at risk. The judgment therefore does not create an absolute right to every classified document. It does require the restriction to operate within effective judicial control and non-disclosure to carry appropriate procedural consequences, rather than allowing secret material to function as an unanswerable decisive basis for rejecting the appeal.

6. What an effective appeal requires

Article 13 of Directive 2008/115 and Article 47 of the Charter require a remedy that works in practice. The person concerned must be able to understand why the measure was adopted, decide with knowledge of the relevant facts whether to challenge it and formulate a focused response. Permission to see information coupled with a complete prohibition on using it in administrative or judicial proceedings does not satisfy that requirement.

The court's access to the complete classified file matters, but it does not by itself replace the applicant's defence. Nor is it enough to involve a prosecutor who can inspect the material but is not required to consult the person, follow that person's instructions or disclose the substance. Adversarial proceedings require the person, with an adviser where needed, to be able to state a position on intelligible core information.

The national court may examine all grounds and evidence and verify whether the security reasons really justify restricted disclosure. If it finds that they do not, it may give the competent authority an opportunity to disclose the omitted material. If the authority still refuses, the legality review must proceed on the basis only of the grounds and evidence that have been disclosed.

If the court accepts that full disclosure would genuinely threaten security, it may balance confidentiality and defence requirements. Where even the required essence is not communicated, however, the court must draw the appropriate conclusions. The CJEU did not prescribe one uniform consequence, such as automatic annulment in every legal system. It required a genuine judicial response capable of preserving the practical effectiveness of the rights of defence.

7. The lower court's duty after the CJEU interpretation

A separate and practical part of the judgment concerns the relationship between lower and superior national courts. After a preliminary reference, the court deciding the main proceedings is bound by the CJEU's interpretation of EU law. The principle of primacy and Article 267 TFEU preclude a domestic rule requiring that court to follow a superior court's legal assessment when it considers that assessment incompatible with the interpretation supplied by the CJEU.

Where necessary, the lower court must disregard the conflicting national ruling or the domestic rule demanding unconditional compliance. That obligation protects the unity and effectiveness of EU law and prevents the preliminary-reference mechanism from becoming pointless.

This does not give every lower court a general licence to set aside higher authority merely because it disagrees. The departure must be grounded in the applicable interpretation of EU law and reasoned within the actual dispute. The CJEU also did not determine the facts or order the outcome of the Hungarian proceedings. The national court must apply the interpretation, assess the file and decide the appropriate consequence.

8. Practical administrative-file checklist

For a lawyer, administrative authority or court, the judgment can be translated into a concrete completeness review. This checklist does not replace the applicable national procedure, but it helps expose the material gaps early:

  1. Identify every measure: list separately the residence decision, return decision, entry ban, security opinions and any suspension or enforcement measure.
  2. Build the chronology: record applications, opinions, notifications, family changes, appeal deadlines and the precise point at which the authority knew of the family ties.
  3. Prove the family links: collect civil-status records, nationality documents, parental-responsibility evidence, cohabitation material and proof of actual daily care.
  4. Document dependency: address age, emotional bond, financial and practical support, school, health, language, the other parent's role and the realistic effects of separation.
  5. Assess each child's interests: examine stability, development, family unity and the real possibility of remaining within the Union on an individual basis.
  6. Update the record: identify developments after any residence refusal and ask for the situation to be assessed at the time of the return decision.
  7. Define the security ground: seek an intelligible description of the alleged threat and identify which body made the individual assessment, without demanding public disclosure of legitimately protected operational detail.
  8. Test reasons and proportionality: verify whether the decision links the evidence to the threat, weighs family and child factors, and explains why the duration and scope of any ban are necessary.
  9. Map classified material: list the documents or categories used, who has inspected them and the specific basis asserted for each restriction.
  10. Request usable disclosure: seek the essence of decisive grounds and material in a form that can be used effectively in the defence, together with reasons for every refusal.
  11. Confirm judicial powers: establish whether the court can inspect the full material, test the need for secrecy and draw consequences if the authority does not disclose what EU law requires.
  12. Frame the remedy: connect each omission to a specific request, deadline and procedural consequence; do not assume that either the word “classified” or the existence of a child automatically determines the result.

In a file containing several administrative measures, a single chronology and separate schedules of disclosed and withheld material reduce confusion. They also allow the reviewing court to see whether the family assessment preceded the return decision, whether it was current and whether the factual case against the person could genuinely be answered.

9. What the judgment did not hold

  • It did not recognise an automatic residence right for every parent of a child who is a Union citizen.
  • It did not hold that national-security concerns are always insufficient or that specialist security bodies may not participate.
  • It did not create an absolute right of access to every classified document, source or investigative method.
  • It did not prescribe automatic annulment or the same sanction for every disclosure failure.
  • It did not determine whether PQ was a threat, whether he ultimately had a right of residence or how the Hungarian court must dispose of the action.
  • It did not make the child's best interests the only consideration; it required that interest to be assessed genuinely, primarily and individually.

10. Frequently asked questions

Does having a child who is a Member State national always prevent return?

No. The authority must examine known family ties and the real relationship of dependency. Article 20 protection arises in specific situations where return would in practice compel the Union citizen to leave the Union as a whole. Separately, Article 5 of the Directive always requires due consideration of family life and the child's best interests.

Must the person receive every classified document?

Not necessarily. Direct access may be restricted for specific and genuine national-security reasons. The general rule requires effective knowledge of the essence of decisive grounds and material. An exceptional refusal even of that essence does not leave the court passive: it must supervise the framework and draw the appropriate consequences.

Is it enough for the judge to have full access to the file?

No, not on its own. Judicial access is an important safeguard, but the defence also requires enough disclosure for the person to answer the case. Secret knowledge held only by the judge, a prosecutor or an adviser unable to communicate with the client does not fully replace adversarial proceedings.

Does a failure to state reasons automatically annul the return decision?

Case C-26/25 did not impose one automatic sanction for every national system. The reviewing court must apply effectiveness, good administration and effective judicial protection, and draw consequences that preserve the rights of defence. The precise outcome depends on the file and the powers available under national procedural law.

Can dependency be raised for the first time in court?

Where the family ties were already known to the authority, failure to cite Article 20 expressly does not release the authority from the necessary assessment. The person may invoke that omission through an effective remedy, and the court must be able to take account of relevant facts that first emerge during the judicial proceedings.

11. Official sources

Legal and image notice: The official sources were checked on 30 August 2026 and the judgment remained provisional. The cover is an illustrative stock photograph featuring models; it does not depict PQ, his children or any person connected with the proceedings. This article provides general legal information and is not individual legal advice.