{"id":22802,"date":"2023-08-22T18:13:59","date_gmt":"2023-08-22T18:13:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/?p=22802"},"modified":"2023-08-27T16:21:29","modified_gmt":"2023-08-27T16:21:29","slug":"group-expulsions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/","title":{"rendered":"Group Expulsions [ECHR]"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_63 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title \" >Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#Collective_Expulsions\" title=\"Collective Expulsions\">Collective Expulsions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#Deportation_or_Expulsions\" title=\"Deportation or Expulsions\">Deportation or Expulsions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#Collective_Expulsions-2\" title=\"Collective Expulsions\">Collective Expulsions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#Family\" title=\"Family\">Family<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#Entry_Refused\" title=\"Entry Refused\">Entry Refused<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#No_Violation\" title=\"No Violation\">No Violation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/group-expulsions\/#No_Violation_II\" title=\"No Violation II\">No Violation II<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Collective_Expulsions\"><\/span>Collective Expulsions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The fourth and seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights deal with freedom of movement and the right to choose a residence in the broadest sense. Article 3 of the Protocol prohibits the deportation of nationals and confirms the right of nationals to enter their own country. Article 4 prohibits the collective expulsion of non-nationals. An alien may not be deported without due process of law. The rights are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<\/p>\n<p>There are no limitations in the Article itself. Certain provisions, such as extradition, are presumed not to be subject to this principle, although, under the European Convention on Extradition, contracting parties may refuse the extradition of nationals.<\/p>\n<p>An expulsion is a requirement to leave the state permanently without the possibility of returning. In X. v. Germany, it was held that a refusal to grant a person entitled to nationality, or citizenship may breach the provision if the purpose is to expel the person.<\/p>\n<p>There must, however, be a causal connection between the expulsion and the determination of nationality, such as to lead to a presumption that the object was expulsion. This was not the case in particular circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>The Protocol&#8217;s provisions 0n\u00a0 collective expulsion of aliens is not applicable to individual deportations\/expulsions. There may be collective expulsions where a group of aliens or non-nationals are expelled together without individual treatment.<\/p>\n<p>In Conka v. Belgium the court \u00a0\u201ccourt reiterates its caselaw whereby collective expulsions . . . is to be understood as any measure compelling aliens as a group to leave a country except where such measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each alien of that group. This does not mean that where the latter condition is satisfied, that there cannot necessarily be a breach of the provision.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Deportation_or_Expulsions\"><\/span>Deportation or Expulsions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In this case, a group of Slovaks of Roma origin, a family of four who had claimed asylum were deported on identical terms without completion of the asylum procedure. Although there was some individual consideration of circumstances, arrangements had been made for the collective repatriation of a number of Slovak nationals.<\/p>\n<p>Others of the same nationality were required to attend a police station at the same time and orders in similar terms were made against them. In this case, the expulsions were found to be collective.<\/p>\n<p>In M v. Cyprus. The applicant was detained with 75 other Syrian asylum seekers. The Syrian nationals were removed in groups under deportation orders in similar terms. The court did not find a violation. The procedures had been completed in respect of those subject to deportation orders with an individual assessment of the circumstances.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Collective_Expulsions-2\"><\/span>Collective Expulsions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Georgia v. Russia concerned the alleged existence of an administrative practice involving the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of Georgian nationals from the Russian Federation in the autumn of 2006. The Court held in particular that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, finding that the expulsions of Georgian nationals during the period in question had amounted to an administrative practice in breach of that Article.<\/p>\n<p>The Court pointed out that Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 was applicable, irrespective of the question of whether the Georgian nationals in this case had been lawfully resident or not, given that that Article did not only refer to those lawfully residing within the territory of a State. During the period in question the Russian courts had made thousands of expulsion orders expelling Georgian nationals. Even though, formally speaking, a court decision had been made in respect of each Georgian national, the Court considered that the conduct of the expulsion procedures during that period, after the circulars and instructions had been issued, and in view of the high number of Georgian nationals expelled \u2013 from October 2006 \u2013 had made it impossible to carry out a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual.<\/p>\n<p>Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece concerned 32 Afghan nationals, two Sudanese nationals and one Eritrean national, who alleged, in particular that they had entered Italy illegally from Greece and been returned to that country immediately, with the fear of subsequent deportation to their respective countries of origin, where they faced the risk of death, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held that there had been a violation by Italy of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention concerning the four applicants who had maintained regular contact with their lawyer in the proceedings before the Court3, considering that the measures to which they had been subjected in the port of Ancona had amounted to collective and indiscriminate expulsions.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Family\"><\/span>Family<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Moustahi v. France concerned the conditions in which two children, apprehended when they unlawfully entered French territory in Mayotte, were placed in administrative detention together with adults, arbitrarily associated with one of them for administrative purposes, and expeditiously returned to the Comoros without a careful and individual examination of their situation.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held that the children\u2019s expulsion had breached Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. It noted in particular that, where a child was accompanied by a relative or the like, the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 could be met if that adult was in a position to submit, meaningfully and effectively, arguments against the expulsion on behalf of the child. However, the particular circumstances of the case, taken as a whole, led the Court to find that the removal of the children, who were very young (five and three at the time) and were not known to or assisted by any accompanying adult, had been decided and implemented without affording them the safeguard of a reasonable and objective examination of their situation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Entry_Refused\"><\/span>Entry Refused<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In Hirsi Jaama and Others v. Italy, Italian authorities intercepted Eritrean and Somali asylum seekers at sea heading from Libya. They were taken aboard Italian naval ships which took returned them to Libya. The court held that they were under the jurisdiction of Italy and accordingly, the Convention applied in principle.<\/p>\n<p>M.K. and Others v. Poland concerned the repeated refusal of Polish border guards on the border with Belarus to admit the applicants, who had come from Chechnya and claimed that they had unsuccessfully attempted to submit applications for international protection at the border numerous timesThe Court held that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, finding that the decisions refusing the applicants entry to Poland had not been taken with proper regard to their individual situations and had been part of a wider policy of refusing to receive asylum applications from persons presenting at the Polish- Belarusian border and of returning those persons to Belarus.<\/p>\n<p>Shahzad v. Hungary concerned the entry from Serbia to Hungary, as part of a group, of the applicant, a Pakistani national, and his subsequent summary expulsion by the police.The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, finding that the applicant had been subject to a \u201ccollective\u201d expulsion, as his individual situation had not been ascertained by the authorities, and they had not provided genuine and effective ways to enter Hungary, and his removal had not been a result of his conduct.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"No_Violation\"><\/span>No Violation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Sultani v. France 2007 \u00a0case concerned the risk of deportation on a collective flight used to deport illegal immigrants. The applicant submitted, in particular, that if he were to return to Afghanistan he ran the risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. He complained of the deportation proceedings against him, and in particular of the short time taken by the French Agency for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to consider his second asylum application. The Court held that there would be no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention if the deportation decision were to be enforced.<\/p>\n<p>Khlaifia and Others v. Italy concerned the detention in a reception centre on Lampedusa and subsequently on ships moored in Palermo harbour, as well as the repatriation to Tunisia, of clandestine migrants who had landed on the Italian coast in 2011 during the events linked to the \u201cArab Spring\u201d. The applicants submitted in particular that they had been subjected to collective expulsion.<\/p>\n<p>The Grand Chamber held that there had been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. It found in particular that Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 did not guarantee the right to an individual interview in all circumstances. The requirements of that provision were satisfied where each alien had the possibility of raising arguments against his or her expulsion and where those arguments had been examined by the authorities of the respondent State. Lastly, the Grand Chamber held that there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2 (right to be informed promptly of the reasons for deprivation of liberty), a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 (right to a speedy decision by a court on the lawfulness of detention), no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) as regards both the conditions in the Lampedusa early reception and aid centre and the conditions on the ships in Palermo harbour, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3 concerning the lack of a remedy by which the applicants could have complained about the conditions in which they were held in the Lampedusa reception centre or on the ships.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"No_Violation_II\"><\/span>No Violation II<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>N.D. and N.T. v. Spain \u00a02020 (Grand Chamber judgment)case concerned the immediate return to Morocco of two nationals of Mali and C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire who on 13 August 2014 attempted to enter Spanish territory in an unauthorised manner by climbing the fences surrounding the Spanish enclave of Melilla on the North African coast. The applicants maintained that they had been subjected to a collective expulsion without an individual assessment of their circumstances and in the absence of any procedure or legal assistance. They complained of a systematic policy of removing migrants without prior identification, which, in their view, had been devoid of legal basis at the relevant time. They also complained of the lack of an effective remedy with suspensive effect by which to challenge their immediate return to Morocco.<\/p>\n<p>The Grand Chamber held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. It noted in particular that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorised location, taking advantage of the group\u2019s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court found that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants \u2013 assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention \u2013 had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct.<\/p>\n<p>Asady and Others v. Slovakia 2020 \u00a0concerned the expulsion of 19 Afghan nationals to Ukraine by the Slovak Border and Foreigners Police.<br \/>\nThe Court examined the complaints of only seven of the 19 applicants, striking the case out of its list in respect of the others. It held that there had been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in respect of the seven applicants, finding that the Slovakian police had not subjected them to collective expulsion when they had returned them to Ukraine.<\/p>\n<p>The Court considered in particular that despite short interviews at the police station, they had been given a genuine possibility to draw the authorities\u2019 attention to any issue which could have affected their status and entitled them to remain in Slovakia. Their removal had not been carried out without any examination of their individual circumstances.<\/p>\n<!--themify_builder_content-->\n<div id=\"themify_builder_content-22802\" data-postid=\"22802\" class=\"themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-22802 themify_builder tf_clear\">\n    <\/div>\n<!--\/themify_builder_content-->\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Collective Expulsions The fourth and seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights deal with freedom of movement and the right to choose a residence in the broadest sense. Article 3 of the Protocol prohibits the deportation of nationals and confirms the right of nationals to enter their own country. Article 4 prohibits the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[344],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22802"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22802"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22802\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23557,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22802\/revisions\/23557"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}