Detention of third-country nationals in return procedures the German Regional Court in Bochum was not satisfied that real prospects for return existed in a case in which the aliens department intended to return the person on a German laisser-passer bypassing the receiving state.90 Real prospects for return must exist within the timeframe foreseen for detention. With this regard, the Irish High Court held, for example, that imprisonment pending deportation is only justified for so long as it is necessary for immediate or reasonably immediate deportation. The Court ruled that it would be an abuse of power to continue detention if it was clear it could not be carried out within the eight week period in which detention is allowed.91 In Belgium, the law allows for an extension of detention beyond the initial two months, only if certain conditions are fulfilled, one being the possibility to remove the person within a reasonable delay.92 In Germany, the Higher Regional Court in Celle dealt with delays caused by the state of return and held that if the German authorities knew that a deportation was not enforceable within the given time limit due to the delay of the state of return, this would not be justified.93 FRA Opinion Pre-removal detention is not lawful in the absence of realistic prospects for removal. It would normally be up to the administration and the courts to decide when this is the case. In order to prevent prolonged detention, legislators may, however, consider introducing presumptions against pre-removal detention for de facto stateless persons, where it is evident from past experience that the country of nationality will refuse any cooperation in establishing the citizenship and issuing related travel documents. 2.5. Legal bars to removal Return Directive Article 5 When implementing this Directive, Member States shall […] respect the principle of non-refoulement. Closely linked to the issue of real prospects for removal is the discussion on legal bars to removal. These include first had been held for 10 months while the UK Home Office was trying to convince Germany to take him back as he had been granted asylum in Germany; however, he had been convicted of a criminal offence while being on a visit to the UK. 90 Germany/Regional Court [Landgericht] Bochum, decision of 23/3/2004, case number 7 T 77/04. 91 Gutrani v. Minister for Justice [1993] 2 IR 427. 92 Belgium, Law on Foreigners, Article 7.11. 93 Germany/Higher Regional Court, [Oberlandesgericht] Celle, InfAuslR 2004, p.306. 26 of all the need to respect the principle of non-refoulement, i.e. the prohibition to return a person to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as well as the prohibition of return to persecution and other serious harm.94 Legal bars to removal may however also be based on considerations relating to family life95 and, exceptionally, to the state of health of an irregular migrant.96 Other legal bars may concern children or relate to other considerations that may have been established in national law. Normally, any legal bar to removal should have been examined before issuing a return decision. There may however be circumstances in which such bars emerge at a later stage, such as, for instance, in case of sudden deterioration of the security situation in the country of origin. The question arises whether detention for the purpose of removal can still be justified. Based on the considerations presented in the previous paragraph, this would depend on whether real and tangible prospects for removal still exist within the timeframe foreseen for detention. This would have to be examined in each individual case. Experience, however, tends to indicate that in situations of armed conflict, civil strife or serious disturbances of public order it is unlikely that the impediments to removal will be of a short-term nature. In most cases, the deterioration of the security or humanitarian situation in the country of origin would be considered during a regular periodic review or when deciding on the extension of detention, and not as soon as legal bars to removal arise. A different approach has recently been taken in the new detention guidelines issued in North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW). In Germany, the Minister of Interior has the power to declare a general suspension of deportation to a particular area based on international protection or humanitarian grounds.97 Following the new guidelines, whenever such declaration is announced, in NRW a special review of the detention has to take place immediately to determine if extending the deprivation of liberty beyond the period for which the suspension was declared (this amounts in general to six months) is still proportionate, and thus justified.98 94 The principle of non-refoulement is set forth in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to which all European Union Member States are parties. In addition, the ECtHR has interpreted Article 3 of the ECHR to prohibit the return to torture, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment, see, for example, ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Saadi v. Italy, No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008, paragraphs 125 and 138-140. 95 See, for example, ECtHR, Omojudi v. the United Kingdom, No. 1820/08, 24 November 2009, paragraph 41. 96 See, for example, ECtHR (Grand Chamber), N. v. the United Kingdom, No. 26565/05, 27 May 2008, paragraphs 42-45. 97 See German Residence Act, Article at 60a. 98 Richtlinien für den Abschiebungsgewahrsam im Land NordrheinWestfalen, Decree of the Ministry of the Interior of 19 January 2009, at 3.2.5.3 Az.-15-39.21.01-5-AHaftRL, available in German online at: http:// www.abschiebungshaft.de/Abschiebungshaft%20Rechtsprechung/ Abschiebungshaftrichtlinie%20NRW%2019.01.2009.pdf.