Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:44:17.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deconstructing Hirsi: The Return of Hot Returns

ECtHR 13 February 2020, Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, ND and NT v Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2021

Lucía Alonso Sanz
Lucía Alonso Sanz*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law at Complutense University of Madrid.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 335 - 352
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Constitutional Law Review

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author is grateful to Professor Javier García Roca, for his comments on an earlier version of this contribution.

References

1 ECtHR 3 October 2017, No. 8675/15 and 8697/15, ND and NT v Spain.

2 ECtHR 13 February 2020, Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, ND and NT v Spain.

3 Resolution 2299 (2019) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 28 June 2019: Pushback policies and practice in Council of Europe member States.

4 EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Migration: fundamental rights issues at land borders, 2020, p. 4, ⟨https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-land-borders-report_en.pdf⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

5 The Guardia Civil border control operations Protocol of 26 February 2014.

6 Institutional Law 4/2000 of 11 January 2000 on the rights and freedoms of aliens in Spain and their social integration.

7 On the reform see C. Carbó Xalabarder and E. Sanz Vilar, ‘Las devoluciones ‘en caliente’: ¿una respuesta deshumanizada?’, 34 Revista Jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (2017) p. 373 at p. 381; J.V. González García, ‘Expulsiones “en caliente”, devoluciones y petición de asilo en Ceuta y Melilla’, 196 Revista de administración pública (2015) p. 309 at p. 329.

8 Art. 4 of the Protocol: ‘Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited’.

9 Art. 13 of the Convention: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity’.

10 ECtHR 23 February 2012, No. 27765/09, Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy. The case involved pushback operations on the high seas and the transfer of irregular migrants to Libya by the Italian authorities. The Court considered that the transfer of the applicants (Somali and Eritrean nationals) to Libya constituted an exercise of jurisdiction which engaged the responsibility of Italy under Art. 4 of Protocol (paras. 169-182). As it had been carried out without any examination of each individual situation, and taking into account that the applicants were exposed to the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in Libya and also to the risk of being repatriated to Somalia and Eritrea, the Court held that Italy had violated Arts. 3 and 4 of the Convention, and also Art. 13 in relation to both of them.

11 ECtHR 21 October 2014, No 16643/09, Sharifi and others v Italy and Greece.

12 Art. 1 of the Convention: ‘The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention’.

13 ND, NT, supra n. 1, para. 103.

14 Ibid., para. 104.

15 Ibid., paras. 99 and 107.

16 Ibid., para. 121.

17 ND, NT, supra n. 2, para. 78.

18 Ibid., para. 185.

19 Ibid., para. 208.

20 Ibid., para. 218.

21 Ibid., para. 242.

22 Ibid., para. 103 (‘A State’s jurisdictional competence under Article 1 is primarily territorial […]. It is presumed to be exercised normally throughout the State’s territory. Only in exceptional circumstances may this presumption be limited, particularly where a State is prevented from exercising its authority in part of its territory […]’), para. 106 and para. 108.

23 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969; International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, 2014, and its interpretation by the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission.

24 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of 9 March 2016 (the Schengen Borders Code), and Directive 2008/115 of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (‘The Return Directive’).

25 ND, NT, supra n. 2, para. 184.

26 S. Carrera, ‘The Strasbourg Court judgement N.D. and N.T. v Spain. A Carte Blanche to Push Backs at EU External Borders?’, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2020/21 (2020) p. 4.

27 European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights, updated on 31 December 2020, ⟨https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_4_Protocol_4_ENG.pdf⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

28 ECtHR 15 December 2016, No. 16483/12, Khlaifia and Others v Italy, para. 248.

29 Among others: ECtHR 30 October 1991, No 13163/87, Vilvarajah and Others v the United Kingdom, para. 103; ECtHR 16 June 2005, No 18670/03, Berisha and Haljiti v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, para. 1. On the personal and territorial scope of application of this article see F.L. Gatta, ‘The problematic management of migratory flows in Europe and its impact on human rights: the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights’, in G.C. Bruno et al. (eds.), Migration Issues before International Courts and Tribunals (CNR Edizioni 2019) p. 119 at p. 146, p. 125-126.

30 M. Di Filippo: ‘Walking the (barbed) wire of the prohibition of collective expulsion: An assessment of the Strasbourg case law’, 15 (2) Diritti umani e diritto internazionale (2020) p. 479 at p. 509, p. 485.

31 Gatta, supra n 29, p. 130.

32 Some examples: para. 198: ‘It is apparent from this case law that Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, in this category of cases, is aimed at maintaining the possibility, for each of the aliens concerned, to assert a risk of treatment which is incompatible with the Convention – and in particular with Article 3 – in the event of his or her return and, for the authorities, to avoid exposing anyone who may have an arguable claim to that effect to such risk’; paras. 243, 244: ‘It follows that the lack of remedy in respect of the applicants’ removal does not in itself constitute a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in that the applicants’ complaint regarding the risks they were liable to face in the destination country was dismissed at the outset of the procedure […] Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4’.

33 Ibid., para. 126.

34 Ibid., para. 206.

35 Art. 35 of the Spanish Immigration Act.

36 Opinion corresponding to Communication No. 4/2016.

37 ECJ 14 January 2021, Case C-441/19, TQ/Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid.

38 Guide on Article 4, supra n. 27, para. 9. ND, NT, supra n. 2, para. 200.

39 Ibid., para. 200.

40 In the cases of Hirsi Jamaa, supra n. 10, para. 184 and Khlaifia, supra n. 28, para. 240, the Court simply mentioned the criterion in the abstract, without linking any specific meaning or conclusion to it.

41 Berisha, supra n. 29, para. 2.

42 ECtHR 1 February 2011, No. 2344/02, para. 7.

43 ND, NT, supra n. 2, paras. 201, 206.

44 D. Thym, ‘A Restrictionist Revolution? A Counter-Intuitive Reading of the ECtHR’s N.D. and N.T. judgment on “Hot Expulsions”’, Eumigrationlawblog.eu, 17 February 2020, ⟨https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-restrictionist-revolution-a-counter-intuitive-reading-of-the-ecthrs-n-d-n-t-judgment-on-hot-expulsions/⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

45 ND, NT, supra n. 2, paras. 201, 209.

46 Ibid., paras. 201, 211.

47 Judges for Democracy Association, ‘Communiqué on the ECHR decision on hot returns: EUROPA SE BLINDA’, 14 February 2020, ⟨http://www.juecesdemocracia.es/2020/02/14/comunicado-jjpd-acerca-la-decision-del-tedh-las-devoluciones-caliente-europa-se-blinda/⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

48 ND, NT, supra n. 2, paras. 143, 155, 218.

49 Ibid., para. 213.

50 Ibid., para. 216.

51 H. Hakiki, ‘N.D. and N.T. v Spain: defining Strasbourg’s position on push backs at land borders?’, Strasbourg Observers (2020), ⟨https://strasbourgobservers.com/2020/03/26/n-d-and-n-t-v-spain-defining-strasbourgs-position-on-push-backs-at-land-borders/⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

52 ND, NT, supra n. 2, para. 221.

53 Ibid., para. 218.

54 D. Moya, ‘La ceguera del Tribunal de Estrasburgo’, in AGENDA_PÚBLICA. Analistas de actualidad, 16 February 2020, ⟨http://agendapublica.elpais.com/la-ceguera-del-tribunal-de-estrasburgo/⟩; ‘Spain will give Morocco €30 million to curb irregular immigration’, El Pais, 19 July 2019, ⟨https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/19/inenglish/1563521682_999175.html⟩; ‘Spain and Morocco reach deal to curb irregular migration flows’, El Pais, 21 February 2019, ⟨https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/02/21/inenglish/1550736538_089908.html⟩, all visited 6 July 2021.

55 ND, NT, supra n. 2, paras. 227, 228.

56 Carrera, supra, n. 26, p. 12 at p. 15.

57 Spanish Office for Asylum and Refuge, Asilo en cifras 2014, 2015, ⟨http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642317/1201562/Asilo_en_cifras_2014_126150899.pdf/6e403416-82aa-482f-bcda-9a38e5a3a65c⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

58 Spanish Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations, ⟨https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/Estadisticas/operaciones/visados/index.html⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

59 G. Ciliberto, ‘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’, 21 Human Rights Law Review (2021) p. 203 at p. 212, ⟨https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa041⟩, visited 6 July 2021. The author uses as a comparison term the Court’s interpretation of the admissibility criterion of exhaustion of domestic remedies, according to which, the only remedies that must be exhausted are those that have ‘a sufficiently clear legal basis’, ‘provide a reasonable prospect of success’, and whose possibility of use by the appellants is realistic.

60 Tenth additional provision of the Immigration Act, as amended by Institutional Law 4/2015 of 30 March 2015 on the protection of citizens’ safety.

61 STC 172/2020, FJ. 8.

62 ND, NT, supra n. 2, para. 210.

63 Supra n. 61, FJ 8.

64 Ibid.

65 ‘Revealed: 2,000 refugee deaths linked to illegal EU pushbacks’, The Guardian, 5 May 2021, ⟨https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/may/05/revealed-2000-refugee-deaths-linked-to-eu-pushbacks⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

66 European Parliamentary Research Service, ‘Pushbacks at the EU’s external borders’, 2021, p. 5, ⟨https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689368/EPRS_BRI(2021)689368_EN.pdf⟩, visited 6 July 2021.

67 Ibid., Moya, supra n. 54; El Pais, supra n. 54.

68 ‘Deaths at sea expose flaws of Italy-Libya migration pact’, The Guardian, 23 July 2018, ⟨https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/mother-and-child-drown-after-being-abandoned-off-libya-says-ngo⟩; ‘Morocco says it prevented 70,000 attempts at irregular migration in 2019’, El Pais, 4 February 2020, ⟨https://english.elpais.com/international/2020-02-04/morocco-says-it-prevented-70000-attempts-at-irregular-migration-in-2019.html#::text=Morocco%20said%20that%20in%202019,country’s%20official%20news%20agency%2C%20MAP⟩, both visited 6 July 2021.

69 ECtHR 10 November 2005, No. 44774/98, Leyla Şahin v Turkey, para. 136; Hirsi Jamaa, supra n. 10, para. 175.

70 Application Nos. 19420/15, Doumbe Nnabuchi v Spain and 20351/17, Balde and Abel v Spain.