ratified Protocol No. 7 shall enjoy the specific guarantees provided for in Article 120. In short, the Court finds that the expulsion of the first applicant failed to meet the various requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No Convention. There was therefore a breach of that provision. At European Union level, the return policy is governed by Directive 2008/115 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. In accordance with art.15 para. (1) and (2) of the Directive, unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be effectively applied in a specific case, Member States may hold a third-country national in public custody who is the subject of return procedures only in order to prepare the return process and / or to carry out the removal process if: (a) there is a risk of theft; (b) the third-country national concerned avoids or impedes the preparation for return or the removal process. Measures to be taken into public custody shall be ordered by the administrative or judicial authorities. The taking into public custody is ordered in writing, mentioning the factual and legal reasons. Where the taking into public custody has been ordered by the administrative authorities, the Member States: (a) or ensure a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of public custody, which shall be decided as soon as possible after the commencement of public custody, (b) or grant the concerned third-country national the right to bring an action under which the lawfulness of the measure of public custody is subject to judicial review as soon as possible from the initiation of the relevant proceedings. In this case, Member States shall immediately inform the concerned third-country nationals of the possibility of initiating such action. In accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, the procedural guarantees provided by art.1 of the protocol no. 7 of the ECHR establishes specific guarantees, one substantive and three procedural guarantees, for the situations in which a contracting state decides to expel, for reasons related to its assessment, a foreigner legally in its territory. The substantive guarantee is provided in art. 1para.1 of Protocol no. 7 and consists in the requirement imposed by the text that a foreigner who is, according to the relevant national legal provisions, on the territory of a state, can be expelled only by a decision adopted according to the applicable legal provisions in the state in question. To this are added the three procedural guarantees provided by the text, namely: a) the 20 Lupsa v. Romania, §§ 51 and 52; Kaya v. Romania, no. 33970/05, §§ 51 and 52; and Bolat v, Russia, no. 14139/03, § 76; 64