European ministers are discussing a a plan to transfer rejected asylum seekersto third countries, causing strong reaction from human rights organisations.
Radical changes to the management of migrant flows are being considered by European governments, as the creation of “centres of return” outside European territory for people whose asylum claims have been rejected is at the centre of consultations. The initiative, expected to be discussed at a high level in Moldova, marks a shift by many European countries towards more systematic policies to control frontier and returns of migrants. At the same time, the debate is causing heated controversy over the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, with organisations and legal circles warning of risks of violations of the fundamental rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Potential non-EU host countries are already on the table, while several European governments are calling for greater flexibility in deportations and a reduction in legal obstacles blocking returns.
European ministers will this week discuss plans to send thousands of migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected to third-country hostels, the head of the continent’s human rights organisation has told the Guardian.
The declaration and the reactions
Alain Bercet, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, said discussions on the removal of people who arrived in Europe through irregular routes would be held “at a multilateral level” at a meeting in Moldova on Friday.
Ministers are also expected to announce a political declaration recognising the right of states to control their borders, following claims that human rights laws have prevented the deportation of foreigners who have committed crimes and unwanted asylum seekers.
Several home secretaries have called for changes to the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the British media notes.
The planned moves are expected to provoke a backlash from human rights organisations in the UK. Asylum seekers had successfully challenged the Conservative government’s plans to move them to a third-country centre in Rwanda, citing the ECHR.
Refugee organisations have said that undermining the convention risks weakening protection for the most vulnerable groups in society, including those fleeing war and persecution.
Speaking ahead of the Council conference in Chisinau, the Moldovan capital, Bercet said:
“The discussion on hubs was an important element. We all know that the issue has been discussed in different countries. Now it will be discussed at the multilateral level.
This is progress in the sense that we can address political issues that until recently were only discussed at the national level. Therefore, hubs will be put on the table and we will have to see how such a project can be implemented.”
However, Bercet insisted that it would be “important” that migrants removed from “European territory” continue to be protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
“We are dealing with human beings who are on European territory. This means that they are also protected by the European Court of Justice and the European Convention on Human Rights. This is crucial. Obviously, the conditions in these countries are also important,” he said.
The European Union has voted in favour of the possibility of creating “return hubs”, with Denmark, Austria, Greece, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands involved in consultations with potential host countries.
The discussions have reportedly focused on 12 potential countries – Rwanda, Ghana, Senegal, Senegal, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Egypt, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Montenegro and Ethiopia.
Tensions over the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) escalated last year when a group of nine European countries, including Italy and Denmark, published an open letter calling for greater national control over immigration policies.
The political declaration expected this week is expected to limit the ways in which asylum seekers can invoke Articles 3 and 8 of the convention, namely the right to protection from torture and the right to family life, to prevent their removal from European countries.
Berse said discussions around the declaration, which will not be legally binding, would continue among member states. “The declaration is a milestone. It is an important element, but it is not the end … it is a process that is ongoing,” he said.
Asked whether this week’s declaration is necessary to maintain the coherence of the Council of Europe and keep the ECHR at the heart of the legal framework, Bercet replied that the organisation has changed many times since its founding in 1949.
“It has been transformed repeatedly. We went through periods of rupture, the so-called Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. We are probably facing a new moment of rupture in the international order,” he said.
“And clearly, the role of such an organization is to be proactive but also to react when developments occur. And that is exactly what is happening right now.”
Supporters of “return centres” argue that asylum seekers who have been denied the right to stay end up staying in European countries because of the impossibility of returning either to their country of origin or to a safe third country.
Statistics from Eurostat show that in the seven years to 2023, between 450,000 and 500,000 third-country nationals were ordered to leave the EU each year, but fewer than half of them eventually left.
