Articles for tag: EU Migration Pact, EU-Turkey Deal, externalisation, Frankreich, pullbacks, Pushbacks, Vereinigtes Königreich

Pullbacks in the Channel

&

Last week, negotiations for a new UK–France agreement culminated in the announcement of a 'one in, one out' pilot scheme, under which the UK will return small boat arrivals to France while accepting asylum seekers selected from France who can demonstrate family ties in Britain. The agreement signals a sui generis evolution in European migration control. For the first time, rather than pushing asylum seekers back to third countries to avoid legal responsibilities under EU and international law, an EU Member State is directly preventing departures from its own territory. 

25. Juli 2025

, , , , , ,

Litigating the EU-Turkey Deal

Earlier this year three Dutch NGOs sued the Netherlands for approving and carrying out the EU-Turkey deal. They argue that the Dutch government should be held responsible for the dire conditions under which asylum seekers have been held under on Greek islands since the deal has been concluded, which have repeatedly been found to violate human rights. In this blog, I sketch the context of litigation surrounding the EU-Turkey deal which has driven the NGOs to sue in the Dutch national legal system and explain the promise and pitfalls of the rise of strategic litigation in the sphere of migration and asylum law.

16. Mai 2024

, ,

What Happened at the Greece-Turkey Border in early 2020?

Reports have documented allegations about those in need of international protection being physically prevented from entering into Greece, being subjected to severe forms of mistreatment and deprivation of their liberty, property as well as being collectively expelled from the country without having the opportunity to apply for asylum. Thus, it could be argued there are violations of the right to seek and enjoy asylum, right to life, prohibition of torture, right to liberty and security and right to an effective remedy. Yet this blog will only focus on the most relevant rights/issues.

30. September 2020

A ‘Complete’ System of Legal Remedies?

In practice, Member States and the EU increasingly rely on informal instruments for cooperation with third countries, especially in the area of migration control, with important implications for the rule of law. The choice for informality becomes particularly problematic when it affects the legal situation of irregular migrants, including refugees because it makes it very difficult for them to challenge these instruments in front of EU courts. This blog post explores the effects of EU’s recourse to informality on the judicial protection of the rights of irregular migrants by using the EU-Turkey Statement as an example. The Statement, also known as the EU-Turkey ‘deal’, raises serious doubts as to whether the EU legal order indeed provides for the promised ‘complete’ system of legal remedies.

30. September 2020

, ,

Taking the EU-Turkey Deal to Court?

The EU-Turkey deal on the return of refugees is one of the most controversial policy steps taken by the EU in recent years. The EU General Court chose to sidestep the difficult legal questions raised by the deal by dismissing these cases, ruling it had no jurisdiction to review the deal on the ground that the Statement was not an act of Union institutions, but that of Member States. Will the CJEU use this opportunity to set the record straight by establishing who had the competence to conclude the EU-Turkey deal?

20. Dezember 2017

, ,

Scharade im kontrollfreien Raum: Hat die EU gar keinen Türkei-Deal geschlossen?

Das erstinstanzliche Gericht der EU hat Klagen gegen den EU-Türkei-Deal als unzulässig abgewiesen – die Europäische Union sei an dem Deal überhaupt nicht beteiligt gewesen. Damit bleibt nicht nur die Frage unbeantwortet, wie sicher Flüchtlinge in der Türkei wirklich sind. Der Beschluss wirft auch verfassungsrechtliche Fragen nach der Reichweite der Rechtsbindung und gerichtlichen Kontrolle der auswärtigen Gewalt der EU auf. Steht die Gerichtsbarkeit der Union in einer als „Krise“ wahrgenommenen Situation bereit, die Rule of Law auch gegen den vereinten Willen der politischen Spitzen von EU und Mitgliedstaaten zu verteidigen?

3. März 2017

, ,

Taking refugee rights seriously: A reply to Professor Hailbronner

Reactions to the proposed “refugee swap” between the EU and Turkey have been predictably absolutist. On the one hand, most advocates have opposed the draft arrangement, asserting some combination of the right of refugees to be protected where they choose and/or that a protection swap would clearly breach the ECHR’s prohibition of “collective expulsion” of aliens. On the other hand, Professor Hailbronner argues against any right of refugees to make their own decisions about how to access protection, believes that refugees may be penalized if arriving in the EU “without the necessary documents,” suggests that it does not matter that Turkey is not relevantly a party to the Refugee Convention, and confidently asserts that there is no basis to see the prohibition of “collective expulsion” as engaged here. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

12. März 2016

, , , ,

Legal Requirements for the EU-Turkey Refugee Agreement: A Reply to J. Hathaway

There are many open questions and objections against the EU-Turkey deal on an agreement whose details are yet to be negotiated to manage the Syrian refugee crisis. In particular on the reciprocity part: could the agreement as an easily available tool by Turkey to blackmail visa liberalization and progress in the EU Accession negotiations? How will the EU make sure the proper treatment of all returnees? How is the resettlement of refugees from Syria to the EU (and to Germany) going to take place? James Hathaway on this blog has listed three legal requirements for the agreement to be legal. In my view none of these are likely to block an agreement.

11. März 2016

, , , ,

Why the EU-Turkey Deal is Legal and a Step in the Right Direction

Pro-refugee NGOs were quick to castigate the EU-Turkey refugee deal for falling foul of the EU’s on legal standards and for being an anti-humanitarian solution, in particular insofar as forced returns to Turkey are concerned. Academics also present a critical outlook reiterating the legal criticism or criticising the EU for burden-shifting. The critique highlights a number of valid concerns, but these caveats do not unmake the legal and conceptual value of the approach pursued by the EU: mass-influx scenarios require international cooperation.

9. März 2016

, ,