Statewatch News
ECHR-Spain Bookmark and Share  
European court under fire for backing Spain's express deportations
17.2.20
Follow us: | | Tweet

Help us to continue making our work freely available to all: become a Friend of Statewatch.

"The European court of human rights has been accused of “completely ignoring the reality” along the continent’s borders after it ruled that Spain acted lawfully when it summarily deported two people who tried to scale the border fence separating Morocco from Spanish territory six years ago.

The Strasbourg court announced its decision on Thursday in the case brought by the two men, who are from Mali and Ivory Coast.

The men, known for legal reasons as ND and NT, were among hundreds who climbed the fences that surround Spain’s north African enclave of Melilla on 13 August 2014.

After spending several hours perched on top of the inner fence, they climbed down and were handcuffed by Spanish Guardia Civil officers and handed over to Moroccan authorities.

The pair say they were never given a chance to explain their personal circumstances or receive help from lawyers or interpreters.

But the court found there had been no violation of the European convention on human rights because the men had attempted to enter Spanish territory in an “unauthorised” manner."

See: European court under fire for backing Spain's express deportations (The Guardian, link)

Documentation

Maximilian Pichl and Dana Schulz comment in a post for Verfassungsblog (emphasis added):

"This judgment is a shock. What is shocking is much more than the finding that no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 has occurred, although this finding is wrong. The court draws on a language of “unlawfulness” that serves, from Canberra to Washington DC, as a tool for depriving persons of rights. The judgement is a significant setback in the jurisprudence of the Court. This judgment can hardly be read other than the Court making enormous concessions to the pressure by European states, which since the summer of 2015 in the majority pursue a policy of expanding the externalization of migration control and carrying out ever more repressive forms of push-backs at their land borders (e.g. Greece, Hungary and Croatia). A majority of the judges may have thought that the Court could lose support among the convention states, if the judgment in the case of N.D. and N.T. became a human-rights based correction of the EU border regime. Yet with this judgment, in turn, the Court lost credibility as an effective defender of human rights in times of crisis. When we allow unlawfulness to justify rightlessness, the European project is in severe danger."

See: “Unlawful” may not mean rightless. (Verfassungsblog, link)

Search our database for more articles and information or subscribe to our mailing list for regular updates from Statewatch News Online.

We welcome contributions to News Online and comments on this website. Contact us.

Home | News Online | Journal | Observatories | Analyses | Database | SEMDOC | About Statewatch

© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.