Advancing Accountability

In Alkhatib and Others v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has condemned Greece for yet another instance of human rights violations in border management. By underlining the importance of clear regulations and adequate evidence within border operations, the Court showed avenues to enhance the accountability framework for violations perpetrated at Europe’s borders. Its decision contrasts favourably with the approach taken in the EU at large, where both legislators and national and supranational courts generally disregard the opacity in regulations governing border operations and the difficulty of collecting evidence for migrants.

Heightening the Repressive Dynamic

The new French Immigration Act was promulgated and published on 26th January 2024, the day after the Conseil Constitutionnel decision which censored 35 provisions in one of its longest decisions to date. The Conseil chose to emphasize the Constitution’s procedural requirements, while largely avoiding substantive analysis of the Act’s drastic reduction of foreigners’ rights. Indeed, it asserted the constitutionality or remained silent on many provisions that undercut foreigner’s rights. The Act as promulgated thereby constitutes the most repressive text since 1945 and heightens a migration restrictive dynamic.

Mit der Verfassung spielt man nicht!

Am 25. Januar 2024 hat der französische Verfassungsrat zahlreiche Normen des neuen Einwanderungsrechts für verfassungswidrig erklärt (Nr. 2023-863 DC). Im Kontext dieses Normkontrollverfahrens zeigte sich eine Regierung, die den Verfassungsverstoß als Mittel zur Mehrheitsfindung nutzte. Zugleich scheute das Verfassungsgericht die inhaltliche Prüfung und stützte sich fast ausschließlich auf Verfahrensmängel. Beides hilft Bestrebungen von rechts, eine gerichtliche Kontrolle staatlicher Maßnahmen zukünftig einzuschränken. Noch bleibt Zeit, die Verfassungskultur in Frankreich zu stärken.

Shielding Frontex 2.0

In Hamoudi v Frontex, the General Court dismissed another action that could have clarified if, when, and how independent or joint human rights responsibility would arise when Frontex is engaged in shared operational conduct with the Member States. This time not on the basis of an obscure re-interpretation of the Applicant’s claim, but instead, on the basis of an unattainably high and unrealistic burden, standard and method of proof. In doing so, the General Court again eschews from clarifying the nature, conditions and consequences of both independent and joint human rights responsibility of Frontex. Taken together, these cases raise the question whether there are any viable forms of judicial recourse for fundamental rights violations committed or contributed to by the EU’s Border and Coastguard Agency.

Leading the Way

There is little doubt that climate change in all its facets is one of the most pressing global issues of our time. Increasingly, we see international and regional treaty bodies addressing it. Much has been written about ongoing procedures in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, other regional developments, such as the African Commission’s study on the impact of climate change or the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have regrettably received less attention. As we have submitted an amicus curiae to the latter proceeding, we want to contribute to its prominence and present the core arguments of our intervention to the Court. In particular, we highlight the nexus between climate change and forced displacement from a complementary protection perspective.

Rule of Law Abnegated

This year is the second winter that thousands of asylum seekers will spend on the cold streets of Brussels. More than 2700 of them are still without any material assistance and shelter. 869 of them have a domestic court order recognising their right to reception, yet the Belgian government has consistently refused to implement them. This deliberate refusal to secure the human rights of migrants, especially where these are single males, is not only creating a humanitarian disaster in Belgium’s streets but also undermines the raison d’être of Belgian democracy. While the government’s actions have been condemned by human rights experts and courts alike, we argue it is arguably reflective of a worrying wider trend in the EU of the impotence of the law to secure human rights for migrants.

Legislating fiction

Members of Parliament in the UK will on 16 and 17 January 2024 debate the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which ‘gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country’ for asylum-seekers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was manifestly not safe as asylum seekers sent to the country would face a real risk of ill-treatment due to insufficient guarantees against refoulement. The Bill thus aims to use law to determine a factual situation for as long as the law is in force. This blog discusses the risks inherent in creating such a ‘legal fiction’ and how the Bill could be revised to mitigate this risk, before assessing the chances of it becoming law in the currently turbulent political context.

Between Return and Protection

Last month, the ECJ responded to a preliminary reference of the Regional Court in Brno concerning Czechia’s so-called return procedure. The ECJ ruled that a third country national cannot be subject to a return decision if they applied for international protection and a first-instance decision on that application has not yet been delivered. Curiously, the ECJ thereby answered a question it had not actually been asked, while contradicting the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (“SAC”), rendered shortly before. While the ECJ’s ruling will nonetheless improve some of the problems that have inhered within Czechia’s approach to international protection and return procedures, its failure to answer the referred question constitutes a missed opportunity to facilitate a productive dialogue with referring courts in an area of law where preliminary references have been exceedingly rare.

A Duty to Rescue

Reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean have, unfortunately, become more and more frequent in recent years. A recently published MSF report has highlighted the role ‘pushbacks and systematic non-assistance to those at risk of drowning proliferate’ play in this regard. The report refers specifically to two events that happened in 2023 in which national authorities failed to launch rescue operations despite receiving the information on migrants in distress at sea hours before the tragedy. In this blogpost, we assess whether a coast guard’s failure to act in situations of migrants in distress might violate an incumbent criminal law duty to rescue. We map the core elements of the duty to rescue under criminal law and how they might apply to such a chain of events, using the abovementioned event of 14 June as an example.

Sicherung, Aktivierung, Verbannung

Was verbindet die Bürgergeldreform mit der neuen migrationspolitischen Härte der Ampelregierung? Inwiefern ziehen die Kindergrundsicherung, das Selbstbestimmungsgesetz und die Neuregelung der Einwanderung von Fachkräften an einem Strang? Die vielfachen Gesetzesvorhaben der Bundesregierung erscheinen auf den ersten Blick unübersichtlich, unzusammenhängend, wenig weitreichend oder völlig überzogen. In der von multiplen Krisen geschüttelten Legislaturperiode seit 2021 leitete die Regierung unter anderem Reformen der Sozial- und Familiengesetzgebung (Bürgergeld, Kindergrundsicherung), Migrationspolitik (Fachkräfteeinwanderungs-, Staatsangehörigkeits- und Rückführungsverbesserungsgesetz) und der Geschlechterpolitik (Selbstbestimmungsgesetz) ein. In diesem Artikel diskutiere ich die oft getrennt voneinander betrachteten Reformen gemeinsam.