Oct 6, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organisations intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case challenging the returns of migrants and refugees from Greece under the EU-Turkey deal.
The ICJ, the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of J.B. v. Greece. The case concerns the decision of Greek authorities to return a Syrian refugee to Turkey under the legal assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees, that has been introduced following the EU-Turkey deal reached in reaction to the “refugee crisis”.
The interveners challenge the implementation of the rule of safe third country in these situations with regard to Greece’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the intervention focuses on:
- The principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR;
- The safe third country concept in international refugee law and EU law;
- The respect of the right to an effective remedy in cases of returns to Turkey under the safe third country rule.
Greece-JB_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)
Nov 30, 2016 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
European Union Member States must ensure that a new effort to standardise counterterrorism laws does not undermine fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, a group of international human rights organisations said today.
Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.
The groups call on EU Member States to ensure that implementation of the directive in national law includes additional safeguards to guarantee compliance with regional and international human rights obligations. These safeguards are especially important to ensure that any new laws passed, which will remain in place for years to come, cannot be used abusively by any government, including any that may be tempted to sacrifice human rights and due process in the name of pursuing security.
‘States must effectively address the threat of terrorism. But the EU has rushed to agree a vaguely worded counterterrorism law that endangers fundamental rights and freedoms,’ said Róisín Pillay, Europe Programme Director at the ICJ. ‘Time and again we’ve seen governments adopt abusive counterterrorism laws without assessing their effectiveness, and then implement them in ways that divide and alienate communities. We worry this directive will reinforce this trend and leaves too much leeway for governments to misuse the directive to violate rights.”
The groups also noted that the legislative process for adopting this directive lacked transparency and opportunity for critical debate. There was no impact assessment of the proposal, negotiations moved forward without parliamentary-wide review of the text, and the proposal was rushed through behind closed doors and without any meaningful consultation of civil society.
Despite the inclusion of a general human rights safeguarding clause and repeated caution from our organisations the final text fails to fully protect human rights within the EU:
• The directive repeats the EU’s already overly broad definition of ‘terrorism,’ which permits states to criminalise, as terrorism, public protests or other peaceful acts that they deem ’seriously destabilise the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.’
• Significantly, the directive requires states to criminalise a series of preparatory acts that may have a minimal or no direct link to a violent act of terrorism, and may never result in one being committed. For example the offences of participating in a terrorist group, travelling or receiving training for terrorist purposed are not adequately defined. Unless these broadly outlined offences are subject to careful drafting and strong safeguards in national law, they are likely to lead to violations of rights, including the right to liberty and freedoms of expression, association, and movement.
• The directive criminalises the public distribution of messages, including messages that ‘glorify’ terrorist acts, if the distribution is intentional and causes a danger that a terrorist offence may be committed. However, such a low threshold likely to lead to abuse if not limited as the UN recommends ‘to incitement that is directly causally responsible for increasing the actual likelihood of an attack’. The directive should have incorporated this language to avoid unjustified interference with freedom of expression.
We welcome the directive’s protection of activities of recognised humanitarian organisations. However we remain concerned that the protection does not expressly extend to all individuals providing medical or other life-saving activities that international humanitarian law (IHL) protects during times of armed conflict.
States should take the directive as an opportunity to reassess their counterterrorism laws, policies and practices and engage with civil society and other stakeholders. We welcome the European Commission’s commitment to formally include civil society organisations in their activities to support transposition of the directive.
Contact:
Roisin Pillay, ICJ Europe Director, at roisin.pillay(a)icj.org or +32 2 734 84 46
eu-press-release-flawed-counterterrorism-directive-2016-eng (download the statement)
Oct 10, 2016 | Events, News
The ICJ, OSCE and Group 484 are holding a training on migration and international human rights law starting on From 10 to 13 October in Zlatibor (Serbia).
The training has been organised by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Serbian NGO “Group 484” and will be given by the International Commission of Jurists.
It will focus on international protection of migrants and asylum seekers, access to territory and asylum and the principle of non-refoulement, in light of the current migrants and refugee crisis and drawing from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, of the UN human rights systems and from EU law.
The training will be centred on the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
serbia-jointtrainingmigrationhr-events-2016-eng (download the agenda)
Mar 24, 2016 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ and ECRE presented today a joint submission on the situation of the asylum and reception systems in Greece to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
The submission was presented in view of a meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the implementation by Greece of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece that will take place next June.
The submission refers to the previous detailed joint submissions of ICJ and ECRE and provides recent information on the state of the asylum procedure, reception conditions and detention practices, which are likely to be of importance to the supervision of the execution of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ruling. It focuses on:
- ongoing obstacles to accessing the asylum procedure, namely concerning registration before the Asylum Service, the operation of appeals bodies, as well as the likely application of the “safe third country” concept regarding Turkey;
- the state of Greece’s reception system, with a view to properly assessing its capacity to accommodate asylum seekers and migrants on its territory; and
- updated information on the lawfulness and conditions of immigration detention, including new risks of detention stemming from nationality-profiling and the establishment of “hotspots” at points of arrival.
Greece-ICJECRE-MSS-CommitteeMinisters-5thsubmission-legal submission-2016-ENG (download the joint submission)
Mar 21, 2016 | News
The ICJ today expresses serious concern that the deal concluded on Friday 18 March between the European Union and Turkey on the return of migrants and refugees to Turkey is likely to lead to serious violations of international and EU human rights and refugee law.
“This initiative carries high risks of infringing the right of asylum and the prohibition of non-refoulement, as well as the right to an effective remedy for potential violations of these rights”, said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.
All EU Member States, including Greece, have obligations to protect these rights under international human rights law, and Member States and EU institutions have similar obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The agreement seeks to establish swift return from Greece to Turkey of any migrant or asylum seeker attempting to reach Greece who does not apply for international protection there or whose application is deemed unfounded or inadmissible.
In order to facilitate such returns, Turkey may be declared to be a “safe third country” which could allow for the dismissal of asylum requests in Greece based on this element alone, and the rapid return of applicants.
The EU and Turkey, in their joint statement, contend that these operations will not be carried out in violation of international and EU law, including the prohibition of collective expulsions and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits return to a country where the returned person faces a real risk of torture or other serious violation of human rights.
It is nevertheless unclear how the system proposed could lead to swift returns, while respecting international human rights and refugee law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Asylum Procedure Directive, for a number of reasons.
First, the ICJ stresses that Turkey cannot be considered a “safe third country” for the return of migrants and refugees.
Authoritative reports and international jurisprudence on Turkey demonstrate that neither the general human rights situation in Turkey, nor its asylum procedure and reception system are in line with international law, including Turkey’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment in article 3 ECHR.
Second, the ICJ affirms that the commitment of Turkey to adapt its asylum system to comply with international law and standards does not in itself allow for returns from EU countries in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.
International and EU law binding on Greece and other EU Members States requires an assessment of the situation in the country of return at the moment the return is effected to determine whether there is a real risk of violations of human rights.
Therefore, at present, and irrespective of the commitments made on reform, any return to Turkey would be at high risk of infringing the principle of non-refoulement and the returning country’s legal obligations.
Crucially for the prospects of the new system, it is also clear that the Greek asylum system is not in a position to proceed to a swift consideration of asylum applications in compliance with human rights, including procedural guarantees.
“As is clear from ongoing Council of Europe discussions about implementation of European Court decisions against Greece, the Greek asylum procedure cannot yet provide for an effective remedy for cases of arbitrary refoulement. Without respect for such guarantees, many migrants will be left vulnerable,” said Massimo Frigo, Legal adviser at the ICJ.
The ICJ emphasises that, whatever co-operative arrangements are put in place, Greece and Turkey will have responsibility under international human rights and EU law as regards the rights of persons subject either to Greek or Turkish territorial jurisdiction or to Greek or Turkish authority and/or control.
Furthermore, through its direct involvement in and financing of these arrangements, the EU itself may be complicit in any breach of the right of asylum, the prohibition of collective expulsions, the prohibition of non-refoulement or the right to an effective remedy.
The ICJ is further concerned at the “one for one” resettlement mechanism that will be established to settle one Syrian refugee in a EU country for every Syrian returned to Turkey.
It is of serious concern that this mechanism contemplates the return of Syrians to Turkey. Syrians are prima facie entitled to international protection and would likely fall within one of the grounds of international protection of the EU Qualification Directive.
It would therefore be unlawful under EU law to return them to Turkey.
Full text and additional information on the content of the deal available here.
Contact
Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Legal adviser, Europe Programme, massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
