1.

Are Articles 5, 13(1) and (2), and 15 of Directive 2008/115, (2) read in conjunction with Articles 6, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority, when reviewing compliance with the conditions governing the lawfulness of the detention of a third-country national which derive from EU law, is required to satisfy itself, if necessary of its own motion, that the principle of non-refoulement does not preclude the enforcement of the return decision previously adopted and for the purposes of its enforcement the third-country national was detained?

2.

Are Articles 5, 13(1) and (2), and 15 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Articles 6, 7, 24(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority, when reviewing compliance with the conditions governing the lawfulness of the detention of a third-country national which derive from EU law, is required to satisfy itself, if necessary of its own motion, that the interests referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 do not preclude the enforcement of the return decision previously adopted and for the purposes of its enforcement the third-country national was detained?