Articles for tag: Art. 13 ECHRArt. 3 EMRKGreecePushbacksTurkiye

Feeble Recognition of a Systematic Pushback Practice

In A.R.E. v. Greece and G.R.J. v. Greece, jointly published at the beginning of 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finally acknowledged Greece’s long-standing systematic practice of violently pushing people back at its land and sea borders. While this is already remarkable, both rulings stand out for the Court’s thorough evidentiary analysis and new standards for proving pushbacks. However, the ECtHR failed to fully incorporate the context of a systematic practice, instead maintaining a high threshold for evidencing individual instances of pushbacks.

Extradition and the Regrettable Influence of Politics upon Law

Amongst the ECtHR jurisprudence giving rise to political disgruntlement in the United Kingdom have been judgments on extradition and deportation. Attempts to remove individuals from the UK through one of these avenues have occasionally been frustrated on human rights grounds. In the context of the UK government’s ill-disguised hostility to human rights the Grand Chamber on 3 November issued Sanchez-Sanchez v. UK (App.no. 22854/20). The case considered the application of article 3 of the ECHR prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment where an accused drug trafficker was sought by way of extradition by the United States where he faced the possibility of an irreducible life sentence of imprisonment.

The Whole Is More than the Sum of its Parts

The long-awaited Demirtaş v. Turkey (No 2) Grand Chamber judgment has finally been delivered, twenty two months after referral and sixteen months since the 18 September 2019 hearing.  The judgment, arguably the most important from the Grand Chamber in 2020, is highly significant for both political and jurisprudential reasons. Politically, the case concerns the ongoing deprivation of liberty of Selahattin Demirtaş – the former leader of the left-wing, pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the second-largest opposition party in Turkey.

Hot Returns bleiben in der Praxis EMRK-widrig

In seinem Urteil N.D. und N.T. von letzter Woche hat die Große Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte eine Verletzung des in Art. 4 4. Zusatzprotokoll der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention verankerten Kollektivausweisungsverbots durch Spanien abgelehnt. Daraus den Schluss zu ziehen, die Praxis der sog. hot returns (unmittelbare Abschiebungen ohne individuelle Prüfung direkt an der Grenze) sei vom EGMR gutgeheißen worden, ist angesichts der Presseerklärung des EGMR dazu verständlich aber falsch. Die Praxis der hot returns war und bleibt rechtswidrig.

Genauer hinschauen: Der Beschluss des BVerfG zu einer Abschiebung nach Griechenland

Ob Grundrechte ausreichend geschützt sind, das ist unter Anschauung der Wirklichkeit festzustellen und nicht lediglich mit Blick auf eine Rechtsnorm. Weil das VG Minden das nicht tun wollte, hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht die Abschiebung eines in Griechenland bereits anerkannten Asylbewerbers nach Griechenland gestoppt. Die Rückführung auszusetzen, kann aber nur eine Notbremse sein, nicht aber die aktive Gestaltung der Verantwortungsteilung für den Flüchtlingsschutz in der EU ersetzen. Eine Möglichkeit dazu wäre der europäische Asylstatus.

The Incompatibility of the Definition of Torture in Greece with International Law

In Greek criminal law, torture is defined primarily as the “planned” (μεθοδευμένη) infliction by a state official on a person of severe physical, and other similar forms of, pain. Under the established Greek case law and doctrine in order for the infliction of pain to be considered as “planned” it must be repeated and have a certain duration. This definition raises serious issues of compatibility with international human rights law.