Criminalization of the Immigration in the EU and Protection of Procedural Rights
Abstract
Serbia is a transit country for migrants on their way to the EU via the Western Balkan route. In 2015-2016 over the millions of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia used the Western Balkan route to reach the EU countries. Serbia as the EU candidate country has to fulfil requirement of cooperation with the EU in the area of managing migratory flows through efficient control of its borders jointly with the EU officers. For Serbia to reinforce the border management is important to understand the EU migration policy. Although the Tampere European Council Conclusion from 1999 and the European Agenda on Migration from 2015 declared EU commitments to develop legal access to vulnerable individuals, in the practice migration is perceived as a treat for security. As a result of this approach the preventive and repressive criminal law measures were introduced in the immigration law. The European member state authorities are selectively use criminal law to achieve the migration policy goals. The criminal law measures that are applied across the EU are detention, arrest, police control, removal from the territory. However, there is criticism that these criminal law measures are not followed by criminal law guarantees, especially procedural rights and human rights protection instruments. The analysis is put in context of the Return directive 2008/115 that sets the EU standards and procedures on return of illegally staying migrants. In the article author analyses effects of the criminalization of the immigration and development of the Court of Justice jurisprudence in relation to the procedural rights.
References
Baldaccini, A. (2009). The Return and Removal of Irregular Migrants under EU Law: An Analysis of the Returns Directive, European Journal of Migration and Law. Vol. 11 (1), pp. 1-17.
Basilien-Gainche, M-L. (2015). Immigration Detention under the Return Directive: The CJEU Shadowed Lights. European Journal of Migration and Law. Vol. 17, pp. 104-126.
Gatta, G.L., Mitsilegas, V, Zirulia, S. (2021). Introduction. In. G. L. Gatta, V. Mitsilegas, S. Zirulia, (Ed.) Controlling Immigration Through Criminal Law (pp. 1-8). Hart Publishing.
Giupponi, B. O., (2014). EU Return Policy and International Human Rights Law: Keeping the Balance Between Border Security and Human Dignity, Spanish Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 18, pp. 163-197.
Majcher. I. (2013). The European Union Returns Directive: Does it prevent arbitrary detention? Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration. Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 23-30.
Majcher, I. (2019). The European Union Returns Directive and its Compatibility with International Human Rights Law: Analysis of Return Decision, Entry Ban, Detention, and Removal. Brill Nijhoff.
Majcher, I. (2020). The Effectiveness of the EU Return Policy at All Costs: The Punitive Use of Administrative Pre-removal Detention. In. N. K. Šalamon (Ed.) Causes and Consequences of Migrant Criminalization. Springer, pp. 109-130.
Matić Bošković, M. (2022). Krivično procesno pravo EU. Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja.
Matić Bošković, M. (2020). Uređenje procesnih prava osumnjičenih i okrivljenih u pravnim tekovinama Evropske unije. Strani pravni život, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 29-43.
Matić Bošković, M. (2016). Politika migracija u EU od projekta otvorene i bezbedne Evrope do zatvaranja granica, In. J. Ćirić, B. Knežić (Ed.), Migranti na raskršću ili bespuću zemlje Srbije, (pp. 213-229). Institut za uporedno pravo, Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja
Mitsilegas, V. (2021). The Criminalisation of Migration in the Law of the European Union – Challenging the Preventive Paradigm. In. G. L. Gatta, V. Mitsilegas, S. Zirulia, (Ed.) Controlling Immigration Through Criminal Law (pp. 25-46). Hart Publishing.
Mitsilegas, V., Monar, J., Rees, W. (2003). The European Union and Internal Security. Palgrave/Macmillan.
Oruc, N, Raza, S., Santic, D. (2020). The Western Balkan Migration Route (2015-2019). Prague Process Secretariat, International Centre for Migration Policy Development.
Pahladsingh. A, Waasdorp, J. (2017). Criminal Sanctions and the Return Directive: the Position of Illegally Staying third-country nationals in the European Union. Crimmigratie & Recht, Vol. 1, Issue 1. pp. 20-35.
Peers, S. (2015). Irregular migrants: Can humane treatment be balanced against efficient removal? European Journal of Migration and Law. Vol 17 (4), pp. 289-304.
Raffaelli, R. (2011). Criminalizing Irregular Immigration and the Returns Directive: An Analysis of the El Dridi Case. European Journal of Migration and Law. Vol 13 (4), pp. 467-487.
Raffaelli, R. (2012). Case Note: The Achughbabian Case: Impact of the Return Directive on National Criminal Legislation. Dritto Penale Contemporaneo. pp. 176-183.
Vavoula, N. (2016). The interplay between EU immigration law and national criminal law: the case of the Return Directive, In: V. Mitsilegas, M. Bergstrom, T. Konstadinides, Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 294-314.
Waasdorp, J, Pahladsingh, A. (2017). Expulsion or Imprisonment? Criminal Law Sanctions for Breaching an Entry Ban in the Light of Crimmigration Law. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 4, Issue 2, pp. 247-266.
