The right to liberty of asylum-seekers and the European Court of Human Rights in the aftermath of the 2015 refugee crisis

• Author: Juan Ruiz Ramos
• Position: PhD candidate (FPU), Department of Public International Law and International Relations, Universidad de Granada
• Pages: 305-350

www.reei.org

REEI, núm. 39, junio 2019

DOI: 10.17103/reei.39.10

THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS AND

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE

AFTERMATH OF THE 2015 REFUGEE CRISIS

EL DERECHO A LA LIBERTAD DE LOS SOLICITANTES

DE ASILO Y EL TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS

HUMANOS TRAS LA CRISIS DE REFUGIADOS DE 2015

JUAN RUIZ RAMOS

Contents: I. INTRODUCTION. II. THE GR OUNDS FOR DETENTION UNDER

ARTICLE 5(1)(F) ECHR. III. THE LAWFULNESS OF THE DETENTION AND THE

PROHIBITION OF ARBITRARINESS. IV. THE DURATION OF DETENTION. V.

DETENTION OF VULNERABLE ASYLUM-SEEKERS: THE VULNERABILITY PUZZLE

IN THE ECTHR’S JURISPRUDENCE. VI. DETENTION IS DETENTION NO MORE: ILIAS

AND AHMED V. HUNGARY (GRAND CHAMBER). VII. CONDITIONS OF DETENTION

UNDER ARTICLE 3 AFTER THE REFUGEE CRISIS. VIII. CONCLUSIONS.

SUMMARY: In the context of the 2015 refugee crisis, European States have pushed for tighter migration

control policies by, inter alia, extending and toughening the practice of detaining asylum-seekers. The aim

of this study is to assess how th e European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) constrains this worrisome

practice. Does it grant States the same margin of appreciation as in other migration -related judgments, or

does it adopt a more active role in protecting asylum-seekers’ right to liberty? To answer this question, this

study an alyses the case law of the ECtHR after 2015 on the subject and evaluates it in the light of the

relevant international human rights treaties, European Union law and scholarly opinion. In doing so, it

especially seeks to identify any changes in the Court´s case law that might indicate a reaction of the

Strasbourg Court to the political tensions of the refugee crisis.

RESUMEN: Como respuesta a la crisis de refugiados de 2015, los Estados europeos han impulsado políticas

más estrictas de controles migratorios, entre otros, extendiendo y endureciendo la práctica de detener a

solicitantes de asilo. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar cómo el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos

Fecha de recepción del trabajo: 28 de enero de 2020. Fecha de aceptación de la versión final: 15 de abril de

2020.

 PhD candidate (FPU), Department of Public International Law and International Relations, Universidad

de Granada (jruizramos@ugr.es). This study has been co-financed by th e “Beca de Iniciación a la

Investigación para Estudiantes de Másteres Oficiales” of the University of Granada. The research has been

carried out at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and at the Vrije

Universiteit Amsterdam. The author would like to ex tend his gratitude to his Ph.D. supervisor Prof. Javier

Roldán Barbero and to the academics in these two institutions who gave him valuable feedback.

[39] REVISTA ELECTRÓNICA DE ESTUDIOS INTERNACIONALES (2020)

- 2 -

DOI: 10.17103/reei.39.10

Humanos (TEDH) limita esta preocu pante práctica. ¿Otorga a los Estados el mismo margen de

apreciación que en otras sentencias relativas a las migraciones, o adopta un papel más activo en la

protección del derecho a la libertad de los solicitantes de asilo? Para responder a esta pregunta, el

presente trabajo analiza la jurisprudencia del TEDH d espués de 2015 en esta materia y la evalúa a la luz

de los tratados d e derechos humanos pertinentes, el Derecho de la Unión Europea y la doctrina. En esta

labor, el estudio trata especialmente de identificar cambios en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal que indiquen

una reacción de Estrasburgo a las tensiones políticas derivadas de la crisis de refugiados.

KEY WORDS: Asylum detention, European Court of Human Rights, right to liberty, detention conditions,

margin of appreciation, immigration detention.

PALABRAS CLAVE: Detención de solicitantes de asilo, Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, derecho

a la libertad, condiciones de detención, margen de apreciación, detención de inmigrantes.

I. INTRODUCTION

The right to liberty of the person is one of the foundational pillars of human rights regimes

around the world. Its origins can be traced back to the English Magna Carta Libertatum

of 1215, and the emergence of the modern State is inconceivable without it. Nonetheless,

despite its paramount importance for every human being,

1

States seem to be more readily

prepared to restrict the right to liberty of migrants than that of nationals. In effect,

particularly since the turn of the century, detaining migrants has become a “routine rather

than exceptional practice”

2

through which States seek to control irregular migration,

respond to mounting political pressures and maintain and assert their territorial authority.

3

Detention of migrants without a punitive purpose –i.e. detention that falls outside the

* All referenced websites were consulted for the last time on the 13th of January 2020.

1

In modern human rights declarations, the importance of the right to liberty was recognized in the

Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 (Article 2), the Virginia Declaration of Rights of

1776 (Section 1) and, at the universal level, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 3 and

9).

2

UNHCR, Beyon d Detention. A Global Strategy to support governments to en d the detention of asylum -

seekers and refugees, 2014. Available at: https://cutt.ly/4rxlt7B. Worrisome immigration detention

practices in different countries have made headlines in 2019. See for instance as regards the United States:

CNN, “This year saw the most people in immigration detention since 2001”, 12-11-2018. Available at:

https://cutt.ly/Urxleeu; and as regar ds Spain: El Diario.es, “El nuevo centro de migrantes del puerto de

Málaga dedica 2,3 m2 por persona, la mitad que un calabozo para detenidos”, 28-07-2019. Available at:

https://cutt.ly/2rWkMam.

3

SAMPSON, R. and MITCHELL, G., “Global Trends in Immigration Detention and Alternatives to

Detention: Practical, Political and Symbolic Rationales”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol.

1, n. 3, 2013, pp. 291-305; DUSKOVÁ, S., “Migration Control and Detention of Migrants and Asylum

Seekers –Motivations, Rationale and Challenges”, Groningen Journal of International Law, n. 5, 2017, pp.

23-33, p. 25. Global statistics on immigration detention can be found in the websites of the Global Detention

Project and the International Detention Coalition: https://cutt.ly/vrxlrzW an d https://cutt.ly/ArxlrK8.

The right to liberty of asylum-seekers and the European Court of Human Rights in th e aftermath of the

2015 refugee crisis

- 3 -

DOI: 10.17103/reei.39.10

ambit of criminal law– is often referred to as “administrative detention”, although it can

either be ordered or applied by the State administration or by a court.

4

The international community has expressed the concerns of political and civil actors over

this practice in a soft law document, namely the Global Compact for Migration.

5

In

Objective 13 of the Compact, States commit to “use immigration detention only as a

measure of last resort” and to “work towards alternatives”. Moreover, the United Nations

Committee on Migrant Workers is in the process of drafting a General Comment on

Migrant´s Rights to Liberty and Freedom from Arbitrary Detention,

6

which reinforces the

inclusion of the issue of immigration detention on the international political agenda.

Among the migrants being detained, some are people who have been forced to flee their

home countries and are in search of international protection. This practice is particularly

troublesome, since detention causes an “independent deterioration of the mental health of

people who are already highly traumatised”, as an empirical study has shown.

7

Detaining

asylum-seekers exposes them to a high risk of re-traumatisation and reduces the future

prospect of successful adaptation and eventual integration in the host society.

8

In the European context, the use of detention as part of migration policies in recent years

is very much linked to European State´s “improvised response”

9

to the unprecedented

levels of migrants and asylum-seekers that the continent faced in 2015 which was named

by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) “the year of Europe´s

Refugee Crisis”.

10

Although as far back as in 2003 Goodwin-Gill warned of the need to

maintain accurate records of all cases where refugees and asylum-seekers are detained,

11

data collection and publication by States on this issue remains very scarce in the European

4

GOODWIN-GILL, “Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refug ees: non-

penalization, detention, and protection”, in FELLER, E., TÜRK, V. and NICHOLSON, F. (eds.), Refugee

Protection in International Law. UNHCR´s Global Consultations on International Protection, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 232.

5

Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, United Nations General Assembly, 19

December 2018 (Res. A/73/195). This is the first international agreement to regulate human mobility at the

global level. See FAJARDO DEL CASTILLO, T., “El Pacto Mundial por una Migración Segura, Ordenada

y Regular: un Instrumento de Soft Law para una Gestión de la Migración que Respete los Derechos

Humanos”, Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales, n. 38, 2019, pp. 1-34; and VITIELLO, D., “Il

Contributo Dell’unione Europea Alla Governance Internazionale dei Flussi di Massa di Rifugiati e

Migranti: Spunti per una Rilettura Critica Dei Global Compacts”, Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza,

n.3, 2018, pp. 1-44.

6

Draft General Comment No. 5 on Migrants’ Rights to Liberty and Freedom from Arbitrary Detention,

Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrants Workers and members of Their Families, 2019.

The concept note of the Draft is available at: https://cutt.ly/Srxlymd.

7

FILGES, T., MONTGOMERY, E., KASTRUP, M., “The Impact of Detention on the Health of Asylum

Seekers: A Systematic Review”, Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 1, n. 16, 2015, p. 13.

8

ILAREVA, V., “Detention of asylum seekers: interaction between the Return and Recep tion Conditions

Directives in Bulgaria”, EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy [blog], 25-11-2015. Available at:

https://cutt.ly/rrxluhf.

9

VAN MIDDELAAR, Alarums and Excursions: Improvising Politics on the European Stage, Agenda

Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2019.

10

UNHCR, “2015: The year of Europe´s refugee crisis”, 8-12-2015. Availab le at: https://cutt.ly/krxluL7.

11

GOODWIN-GILL, supra note 4, at 238.