THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROHIBITION OF REFOULEMENT AND THE PROHIBITION OF COLLECTIVE EXPULSION IN THE CONTEXT OF ACCESS TO TERRITORY: STANDARDS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between the prohibition of refoulement contained in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens guaranteed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. After identifying common and distinctive elements of the two provisions, the author tests the main hypothesis that the prohibition of refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion are separate prohibitions with an independent existence, but that in the specific context of access to territory, they are intertwined in a variety of ways. The analysis has led to the conclusion that, despite the open questions that remain, the linkage between the two provisions can be used for corrective purposes, particularly in light of the recent lowering of standards by the ECtHR in relation to the prohibition of collective expulsion. It is also suggested that the difference between the positive obligations contained in the two ECHR articles has no significance for the authorities acting on the ground. As the protection afforded by the two prohibitions is complementary, national authorities must ensure that both border practices at and outside the means of legal entry comply with the ECHR standards in relation to both provisions.
References
Alinikula, E. (2021). Migrants at the Borders of Europe: The European Framework for Protection against Pushbacks and Collective Expulsions. Master’s Thesis. Abo Akademi, Faculty of Social Sciences, Business and Economics.
Boková, T., Bražina, R. (2021). Expulsion of Aliens, Non-Refoulement and Issues related to (Administrative) Discretion. Institutes Administrationis. 1. 90-103.
Carlier, J.Y., Leboeuf, L. (2020). The Prohibition of Collective Expulsion as an Individualisation Requirement. In Moraru, M., Cornelisse, G., De Bruycker, P. (eds), Law and Judicial Dialogue on the Return of Irregular Migrants from the European Union (pp. 455-473). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Ciliberto, G. (2021). A Brand-New Exclusionary Clause to the Prohibition of Collective Expulsion of Aliens: The Applicant’s Own Conduct in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain. Human Rights Law Review. 21. 203-220.
Committee against Torture. Concluding Observations on the Third Periodic Report of Serbia. CAT/C/SRB/CO/3.
Čučković, B. (2022). Pravo osoba u potrebi za međunarodnom zaštitom na pristup teritoriji: (ne)jasni standardi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava. In Lilić, S. (ur.), Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije (127-145). Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu Pravni fakultet.
Di Filippo, M. (2020). Walking the (Barbed) Wire of the Prohibition of Collective Expulsion: An Assessment of the Strasbourg Case Law. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale. 14 (2). 479-510.
European Commission. (2022). Serbia 2022 Report. SWD(2022) 338 final. Brussels.
Graf, J.-P., Katsoni, S. (2021). The Evolution of Non-Refoulement: From Negative to Positive Obligations. Humanitäres Völkerrecht. 4 (3-4). 148-160.
Heijer, M. (2013). Reflections on Refoulement and Collective Expulsion in the Hirsi Case. International Journal of Refugee Law. 25 (2). 265-290.
Human Rights Committee. (2017). Concluding Observations on the Third Periodic Report on Serbia. CCCPR/C/SRB/CO/3.
Kakosimou, V. (2017). Non-Refoulement and Access to Asylum. International Journal of Social Sciences. 3 (2). 167-179.
Kim, S. (2017). Non-Refoulement and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: State Sovereignty and Migration Controls at Sea in the European Context. Leiden Journal of International Law. 30. 49-70.
Krstić, I. (2018). Handbook on Migrant Protection in the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade: IOM.
Mole, N., Krstić, I., Papadouli, M., Čučković, B., Tidona, A., Valperga, B. (2019). Handbook on International and European Standards Relating to Asylum and Migration – A Closer Look at Certain Issues. Belgrade: AIRE Center and International Organization for Migration.
Oudejans, N. (2018). Protecting the EU External Borders and the Prohibition of Refoulement. Melbourne Journal of International Law. 19 (2). 614-638.
Ristik, J. (2017). The Right to Asylum and the Principle of Non-Refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights. European Scientific Journal. 13 (28). 108-120.
Scuto, F. (2018). Alien’s Protection against Expulsion and Prohibition of Collective Expulsion by the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Rivista di Diritto Publico Italiano, Comparato, Europeo. 1. 2-17.
Thym, D. (2020). The End of Human Rights Dynamism? Judgments of the ECtHR on ‘Hot Returns’ and Humanitarian Visas as a Focal Point of Contemporary European Asylum Law and Policy. International Journal of Refugee Law. 32 (4). 569-596.
Von Sternberg, M. (2014). Reconfiguring the Law of Non-Refoulement: Procedural and Substantive Barriers for Those Seeking to Access Surrogate International Human Rights Protection. Journal on Migration and Human Security. 2 (4). 329-360.
Wissing, R. (2020). Push backs of ‘badly behaving’ migrants at Spanish border are not collective expulsions (but might still be illegal refoulements). Retrieved 17 March 2023, from https://strasbourgobservers.com/2020/02/25/push-backs-of-badly-behaving-migrants-at-spanish-border-are-not-collective-expulsions-but-might-still-be-illegal-refoulements/
Case law
Constitutional Court decision Už-1823/2017, 29 December 2020.
ECtHR, Andric v. Sweden, Application No. 45917/99, Decision on Admissibility of 23 February 1999
ECtHR, Čonka v Belgium, Application No. 51564/99, Judgment of 5 February 2002
ECtHR, Sultani v. France, Application No. 45223/05, Judgment of 20 September 2007
ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, Application No. 27765/09, Judgment of 23 February 2012
ECtHR, Sharifi et autres c. Italie et Grèce, Requête no 16643/09, Jugement de 21 Octobre 2014
ECtHR, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, Application No. 16483/12, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 15 December 2016
ECtHR, M.A. and Others v. Lithuania, Application No. 59793/17, Judgment of 11 December 2018
ECtHR, N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Applications Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 13 February 2020
ECtHR, Assady and Others v. Slovakia, Application No. 24917/15, Judgment of 24 March 2020
ECtHR, M.K. and Others v. Poland, Applications Nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17, Judgment of 23 July 2020
ECtHR, D.A. and Others v. Poland, Application No. 51246/17, Judgment of 8 July 2021
ECtHR, Shahzad v. Hungary, Application No. 12625/17, Judgment of 8 July 2021
ECtHR, M.H. and Others v. Croatia, Applications Nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18, Judgment of 18 November 2021
ECtHR, A.A. and Others v. North Macedonia, Applications Nos. 55798/16 and 4 others, Judgment of 5 April 2022