EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy Droit et Politique de l'Immigration et de l'Asile de l'UE

Print this article

By Jean-Yves Carlier, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) and Université de Liège; Luc Leboeuf, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology and University of Antwerp

Various international human rights instruments prohibit the collective expulsions of aliens, including art. 4 of Protocol n° 4 to the ECHR. The text of this provision is, however, quite vague. It merely states that ‘Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited’. The ECtHR has consistently ruled in several cases like Conka that the prohibition of collective expulsions is infringed by ‘any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group’. Collective expulsions take place when two constitutive elements are cumulatively met: the aliens are (1) expelled together with other aliens in a similar situation, (2) without due examination of their own individual situations.

Continue reading »

Print this article

By Elspeth Guild, Queen Mary University of London 

The right to leave any country including one’s own recognized under international and European human rights law is increasingly challenged by pullback practices as part of the fight against irregular migration and the externalisation of the EU migration policy. While the compatibility of such measures with the right to leave will be assessed during one workshop organised in the framework of the 2018 Odysseus Annual Conference, this background paper aims to give an overview of the main applicable international norms (1) and their interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee (2) as well as the European Court of Human Rights (3).

Continue reading »

Print this article

By Francesco Maiani, Centre for Comparative, European and International Law (CDCEI), University of Lausanne & Constantin Hruschka, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich

Introduction

A new chapter is being written in the troubled history of responsibility-allocation in asylum matters among the Member States. The Dublin system, (hastily) declared dead at the height of the crisis’ of 2015, has been (belatedly) judged unfit for purpose by a whole range of actors including the Commission and Parliament. A fundamental reform has therefore been placed on the agenda as matter of urgency.

Continue reading »

Print this article

Par Henri Labayle, CDRE 

3. Un financement sans chiffrage ? La question du règlement financier

Les données financières relatives au départ du Royaume Uni ont focalisé initialement l’attention de tous. Si le principe de la contribution britannique n’était pas vraiment discuté sérieusement, en revanche, l’inconnue de son calcul précis avait nourri nombre de déclarations à l’emporte-pièce de certains Brexiters. Durant la campagne référendaire, ils avaient ainsi imprudemment avancé que le gain financier découlant du départ permettrait d’abonder le service de santé britannique à hauteur de 350 millions de livres hebdomadaires (!!!) tandis qu’au mois de juillet encore, Boris Johnson indiquait que l’Union pouvait « toujours courir » pour voir la facture être réglée.

Continue reading »

Print this article

Par Henri Labayle, CDRE

Jeu, set et match … La formule attribuée à John Major au lendemain du traité de Maastricht a été largement reprise par la presse à propos du Brexit, après que les lignes directrices d’un compromis entre la Commission et le Royaume Uni aient été arrêtées sous la forme d’un « join report » (TF50 (2017)19). Ici, cependant, et sans qu’aucun tie-break ait laissé entrevoir un brin d’espoir aux négociateurs britanniques, peu de doutes sont permis quant à l’issue de ce bras de fer et l’identité de son vainqueur.

Continue reading »

Print this article

By Neža Kogovšek Šalamon, The Peace Institute – Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies

The mass influx of asylum seekers to the European Union through the so-called Western Balkans route was made possible due to one major factor: the countries on the route (i.e. Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Germany) collectively disregarded either Schengen rules or, in the case of non-EU states, their own entry rules. As I have discussed elsewhere, the states allowed entry and transit to people who did not meet the required legal conditions.

Continue reading »