Restitution for Pushback Victims

Despite the trauma caused by the brutality of pushbacks, victims often attempt to return to the expelling state’s territory, driven by desperation and the search for a better life. In doing so, they risk repeated violations of their rights. This vicious circle has to be broken. As reparation for the violation of their rights, restitution allowing for their return to the territory of the state responsible for the violation should be granted. This victim-centered approach allows their primary goal of re-entry into the state territory to be achieved through legal means.

Beyond Protection

Whether and how gender-related violence can constitute a ground to claim and receive asylum has long been a subject of debate in refugee law. While feminist legal scholars have long sought to alleviate the gender-blindness of the original text of the Refugee Convention, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) only started taking some steps in this direction earlier this year. The CJEU determined in K, L, that women or specific groups of women who share a belief in an additional common characteristic — such as a belief in gender equality — may be regarded as members of a ‘particular social group’ (PSG), making them eligible for refugee status.

Waiting for Kinsa

On 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union will sit as a Grand Chamber in a hearing addressing the compatibility of the so-called Facilitators Package with the principle of proportionality set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The Kinsa case (previously named Kinshasa) provides an opportunity for the CJEU to counteract the trend towards overcriminalisation of humanitarian action that has taken hold across the EU. This blog highlights the ways in which the Facilitator Package fails to take account of important fundamental rights and why the criminalization of solidarity that it has facilitated is not an inevitability but a political choice.

Nigeria as a Safe Country of Origin?

On May 7th 2024 Italy updated its list of safe countries of origin (SCO) for the second time after the introduction of the notion in the national legal system in 2019. Notably, the latest update retained the most contentious addition to the list from last year, Nigeria. Until then, only Cyprus considered Nigeria as generally safe. The legal issues underlying this designation illustrate how country of origin information (COI), largely provided to Member States by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), is (mis)used to produce policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policies.

Bend it like Britain?

After months of parliamentary ping-pong, the UK Parliament passed the “Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act” in late April. Not even two weeks later, 66 persons were detained to be deported to Rwanda, and the FDA launched an unprecedented legal action before the High Court, claiming the Act conflicts with the Civil Service Code obligation to “uphold the rule of law and administration of justice.” By seeking to avoid the prohibition of refoulement, the Act undermines both core principles of the rule of law and disapplies fundamental human rights protections. This blog post discusses key provisions of the new Act, the concerns they raise and some remaining avenues for legal challenges.

Legalising Illegality

Following Russia’s on-going facilitation of migrants to the Finnish border since last fall, Finland’s newly formed right-wing coalition government has closed the eastern land border indefinitely on 4 April 2024. Worried that this step will not be enough to ensure national security, the government is finalising a Draft Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration, currently under revision.The draft bill allows for pushbacks in violation of non-refoulement and openly admits a conflict with Finland’s human rights obligations, EU law and own constitutional system, which is unusual. The unprecedented nature of the proposed measures is particularly worrying given that the Act appears unlikely to effectively address the essentially political problem that “migrant instrumentalisation” poses.

3½ Myths about EU law on Citizenship for Sale

The sale of national and European Union citizenship understandably remains highly controversial. It seems arbitrary, perhaps even abject, to grant nationality in exchange for a monetary investment, when most people must wait years and overcome considerable hurdles before they can naturalize. As evidenced by three recent posts on the Verfassungsblog by Joseph H.H. Weiler, Merijn Chamon, and Lorin-Johannes Wagner, this question continues to divide EU law scholars. It is also a question that is still plagued by several myths about how EU law and, relatedly, international law, apply to CBI practices. This post discusses 3½ such myths.

Unconstitutionality à l’Anglaise

After long and tortuous proceedings in Parliament, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 finally received Royal Assent on Thursday 25 April. There are so many problems with the Act and they are so fundamental that there has been speculation that the courts might refuse to apply some of the Act’s provisions. In this blogpost, I suggest that aside from the ‘hard-line’ approach of striking down or disapplying the statute in whole or in part, the courts also have a ‘soft-line’ option of declaring its unconstitutionality without denying its status as binding law. I explain how such an intervention might fit into the constitutional tradition of the UK and what may make it attractive in the case at hand.