Main Debates

  • Assistance to those displaced outside the EU v. duty to provide protection within European state territory
  • Non-entrée policies v. duty to provide protection

Main Point

  • Tension between objectives of migration control, particularly control of irregular migration, and protection obligations

EU Documents

  1. Regulation No 610/2013/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Council Regulations (EC) No 1683/95 and (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
  2. B Regulation No. 562/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 Establishing a Community Code on the Rules Governing the Movement of Persons Across Borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 105, 13 April 2006.

UNHCR Document

  1. UNHCR. 'Oral intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi and Others v. Italy', 22 June 2011.
  2. UNHCR, ’Intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi and Others v. Italy’, 29 March 2011.
  3. UNHCR, ’Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol’, 26 January 2007.

Cases

  1. Zakaria (C-23/12), Court of Justice of the European Union, 17 January 2013.
  2. Adil (C-278/12 PPU), Court of Justice of the European Union, 19 July 2012.
  3. Association nationale d'assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE) (C-606/10), Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 June 2012.
  4. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, Application no. 27765/09, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights, 23 February 2012.
  5. Gaydarov (C-430/10), Court of Justice of the European Union, 17 November 2011.
  6. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights, 21 January 2011 (see also Section VI.1.2).
  7. Regina v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another, Ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and Others (on the application of European Roma Rights Centre et al) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport & Anor (UNHCR intervening), 2004 UKHL 55; 2005, 2 AC 1. (See also Section VI.2.3.2).

Readings

Core

  1. E. Guild, C. Costello, M. Garlick, V. Moreno-Lax, M. Mouzourakis, 'New approaches, alternative avenues and means of access to asylum procedures for persons seeking international protection', (European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, 2014), PE 509.989.
  2. V. Moreno Lax, ’Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy, or the Strasbourg Court versus Extraterritorial Migration Control?’, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 12, no. 3 (2012), pp. 574-598.
  3. ECRE, 'Defending Refugees: Access to Protection in Europe', December 2007.

Extended

  1. J. van der Klaauw ‘Irregular Migration and Asylum-Seeking: Forced Marriage or Reason for Divorce?’, in B. Bogusz, R. Cholewinski, A. Cygan, and E. Szyszczak (eds), Irregular Migration and Human Rights: Theoretical, European and International Perspectives (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), Chapter II.6.
  2. Pro Asyl, ’Pushed Back – systematic human rights violations against refugees in the aegean sea and at the greek turkish land border’, November 2013.
  3. Human Rights Watch, ’Pushed Back, Pushed Around: Italy’s Forced Return Of Boat Migrants And Asylum Seekers, Libya’s Mistreatment Of Migrants And Asylum Seekers’ (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009).
  4. Oxfam, ‘Foreign Territory: The Internationalisation of EU Asylum Policy’ (Oxford: Oxfam, 2005), pp. 7–69.
  5. T. Spijkerboer, ‘Briefing Paper: Trends in the Different Legislations of the Member States Concerning Asylum in the EU: The Human Costs of Border Control’, IPOL/C/LIBE/FWC/2005-23-SC1 PE 378.258, 2006.
  6. Cathryn Costello, ‘Courting Access to Asylum in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored’, Human Rights Law Review vol. 2, (2012), pp. 287-339.

Editor’s Note

Examine how attempts to reconcile migration control and protection have been made when EC legislation was proposed and applied in practice and when the legislation was adopted.

 VI.2.3	 Access to Territory and Access to ProceduresVI.2.3 Access to Territory and Access to Procedures

EU DocumentsEU Documents

UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR Documents

CasesCases

 VI.2.3.1 The EU’s External and Internal BordersVI.2.3.1 The EU’s External and Internal Borders

EU DocumentsEU Documents

 VI.2.3.2 Interception and Rescue at SeaVI.2.3.2 Interception and Rescue at Sea

EU DocumentsEU Documents

UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR Documents

 VI.2.3.3 VisasVI.2.3.3 Visas

EU DocumentsEU Documents

 VI.2.3.4 Carrier SanctionsVI.2.3.4 Carrier Sanctions

EU DocumentsEU Documents

 VI.2.3.5 Extraterritorial Immigration Control and Extraterritorial ProcessingVI.2.3.5 Extraterritorial Immigration Control and Extraterritorial Processing

EU DocumentsEU Documents

UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR Documents

 VI.2.3.6 Biometrics and DatabasesVI.2.3.6 Biometrics and Databases