28 January 2022
International Migration Law and Coloniality
In European human rights law, it is taken for granted that states have the sovereign right to regulate migration. A right to be admitted to a country of which one is not a national, or a right not to be expelled, exists only in exceptional cases. In this blogpost, I look at the origins of “the right to control the entry of non-nationals”. These are to be found in a shift in the colonial labour system which occurred in the second half of the 19th century. It is this history which explains the inequality represented on the map above. Continue reading >>
0 
29 November 2021
Military Actions on Dubious Legal Bases
For months, thousands of migrants from Middle Eastern countries attempted to enter Poland threatened by Belarusian troops. As a reaction, Poland has deployed substantial forces to counter the immigration influx, using the Border Guards along with police and military personnel. Thousands of Polish soldiers have been operating on the border with Belarus. There is, however, no published legal basis for these police-like interventions undertaken by military personnel. The spokesman of the Polish Territorial Defence Forces (WOT) cited an old act of the President on 28th of November, which is not in force anymore as it got repealed in June 2020. Continue reading >>
0
28 October 2021
Pandemics without Borders?
Any future international treaty or instrument on pandemic preparedness and response should refrain from further perpetuating an understanding of international borders that is primarily based on considerations of territoriality – rather, it should ensure that borders are no longer a constitutive element determining the international community’s effort of fighting the spread of dangerous diseases. Continue reading >>
0
11 October 2021
The Writing is on the Wall
On 6 October 2021, Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe published his Opinion in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz. Six Schengen countries (Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have reintroduced border controls over the past years. If the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) were to follow the AG’s Opinion, they would need to seriously rethink their practices in this regard. New evidence-based procedures and serious reasons, capable of passing a proportionality test, would be necessary to introduce border controls within the Schengen Zone. Continue reading >>
0
25 June 2021
The Guardian is Absent
What limits does European Union (EU) law impose on Member States invoking national security to temporarily re-introduce border controls within the Schengen Area? This question will be answered soon by the European court of Justice (ECJ) in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz. Continue reading >>19 March 2020
Travel Bans in Europe: A Legal Appraisal
This blogpost presents a legal assessment in eight steps that concentrates on borders controls and the extraordinary travel restrictions for the internal and the external borders of the Schengen area. It will be argued that unprecedented travel bans and border closures for Union citizens are legally problematic. The Commission and the Member States should strive to establish uniform and proportional practices that enhance legal certainty. Continue reading >>14 February 2020
A Painful Slap from the ECtHR and an Urgent Opportunity for Spain
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights shockingly endorses a practice which opposes the core principles of International Law and the protection of fundamental rights. This decision repeals a previous ECtHR judgement of 2017 which had condemned push-backs and which Spain had asked to be referred to the Grand Chamber. But all hope is not lost: The Spanish Constitutional Court will rule on the “rejections at the border” provision in the near future and has the chance to uphold Spain’s international legal obligations. Continue reading >>14 February 2020
“Unlawful” may not mean rightless.
Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR is short. Its title reads “Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens”, its text reads: “Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” It comes as a historical disappointment that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its decision in the case N.D. and N.T. v. Spain from 13 February 2020 distorts this clear guarantee to exclude apparently “unlawful” migrants from its protection. The decision is a shock for the effective protection of rights in Europe and at its external borders. Continue reading >>09 January 2018
30 days, six months… forever? Border control and the French Council of State
For Christmas 2017, the French Council of State – the Supreme Court for administrative matters in France – gave a nasty present to those attached to the free movement of persons in the Schengen area. In a ruling issued on 28 December (see here, in French), it upheld the decision of the French Government to reintroduce, for the ninth time in a row, identity control at its “internal” borders, i.e. borders with other Schengen countries – even though checks at internal borders are not, in fact, systematically performed. This decision, issued without even bringing the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, sets aside, probably unlawfully, the time limit set by the Schengen Borders Code. Continue reading >>09 March 2016