Expulsion of aliens, nonrefoulement and issues related to (administrative) discretion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v1i1.11Keywords:
expulsion, non-refoulement, administrative discretion, forced return, migrationAbstract
One of the outcomes of the 2015–2016 migration crisis in the EU is the urgent need perceived to enhance the effectiveness of forced return procedures, including administrative expulsion. However, given the core human rights obligation of non-refoulement, the push for effectiveness needs to be balanced against procedural safeguards preventing “overly effective” proceedings. The example of the Czech Republic shows that an institutional arrangement could significantly undermine the effectiveness of the proceedings when paired with undue conduct of the administration, such as the improper risk of a refoulement assessment. The article argues that the key to effectiveness does not necessarily lie with speedy procedures, but rather with a pragmatic design of the procedures, as can be concluded from a comparison of the Czech and German approaches.
References
Battjes, H. (2009). The Soering threshold: Why Only Fundamental Values Prohibit Refoulement in ECHR Case Law. European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(3), 205-219. doi: http://doi.org/10.1163/138836409X12469435402693
Bergmann, J., & Dienelt, K. (2020). Ausländerrecht: Aufenthaltsgesetz, Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU und ARB 1/80 (Auszug), Grundrechtecharta und Artikel 16a GG, Asylgesetz: Kommentar (13. Auflage). C.H. Beck.
Bouchard, G. & Carroll, B. W. (2002). Policy-making and administrative discretion: The case of immigration in Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 45(2), 239-257. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2002.tb01082.x
Brubaker, R. (2017). Why Populism? Theory and Society, 46(5), 357-385. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-017-9301-7
den Heijer, M. (2008). Whose Rights and Which Rights? The Continuing Story of Non-Refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights. European Journal of Migration and Law, 10(3), 277-314. doi: http://doi.org/10.1163/157181608X338171
Duffy, A. (2008). Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement in International Law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 20(3), 373-390. doi: http://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/een022
Goodwin-Gill, G. (1978). International law and movement of persons between states. Clarendon Press.
Hailbronner, K. (2017). Asyl- und Ausländerrecht (4., überarbeitete Auflage). Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
Hanzlová, R. (2019, June 26). Attitude of Czech Public to Accepting of Refugees – May 2019. Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění. Online: https://bit.ly/3tJN9pG
Hathaway, J. C. (2005). The Rights of Refugees under International Law. Cambridge University Press. doi: http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614859
Hofmann, R. M. (Ed.). (2016). Ausländerrecht: AufenthG, AsylG (AsylVfG), GG, FreizügG/EU, StAG, EU-Abkommen, Assoziationsrecht (2. Auflage). Nomos.
Kluth, W. & Heusch, A. (Eds.). (2016). Ausländerrecht: AufenthG, AsylG, FreizügG/EU, ARB 1/80, AEUV, EMRK: Kommentar. C.H. Beck.
Legal sources
European Commission. (2015, May 13). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European Agenda on Migration. COM(2015) 240 final.
European Commission. (2017. March 7). Commission Recommendation on making returns more effective when implementing the Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. C(2017) 1600 final.
European Commission. (2017, November 16). Commission Recommendation establishing a common "Return Handbook" to be used by Member States' competent authorities when carrying out return related tasks. C(2017) 6505 final.
European Commission. (2018, September 12). Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast) A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting in Salzburg on 19-20 September 2018. COM(2018) 634 final.
European Convention on Human Rights.
Explanatory Report to Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR.
Supreme Administrative Court’s Ruling no. 9 Azs 2/2016, 14 April 2016.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Terezie Boková, Radislav Bražina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
