THE GREEK-TURKISH BORDER SITUATION, THE WESTERN BALKANS ROUTE

AND N.D.&N.T.

Prof. Dr. Iris Goldner Lang

Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law UNESCO Chair on Free Movement of People, Migration & Inter-Cultural Dialogue

igoldner@pravo.hr

DEVELOPMENTS AT THE GREEK-TURKISH BORDER

•  On28/02/2020TurkeyannouncedthatitwouldnolongerstoprefugeesandmigrantstryingtocrosstheGreek-Turkishborder

•  TheborderwasopenedonlyontheTurkishside•  Followingweeks:tensofthousandsofpeoplegatheredontheTurkishsideoftheborder,afterhavingbeenreportedlytakentherebyTurkishbuses

•  Greecedecidedtosuspendallasylumapplicationsforonemonth•  VonderLeyenthankedGreeceasEurope’s“shield”inblockingtheentrytotheEUandpromisedfinancialandmaterialsupport,andthedeploymentofFrontex

•  Numbersdecreased,partlysincetheyrealisedthattheywouldnotbeabletoentertheEUandpartlyduetothecoronaviruscrisis

2

STARTING POINTS

•  ThedevelopmentsattheGreek-Turkishbordercanonlybeunderstoodastheresultoftheinteractionof4factors:Ø MSs’experienceoftheWBrouteandtheirfearofitsreoccurrenceØ fearofturningintohotspots(especiallyoffrontlineMSs)Ø judicialreactions:

Ø CJEUdecisionsonEU-TurkeydealandinA.S.andJafariØ ECtHR’sjudgmentinN.D.andN.T.

3

NF, NG & NM V. EUROPEAN COUNCIL GENERAL COURT

Ø TheCourtthereforeconsidersthatneithertheEuropeanCouncilnoranyotherinstitutionoftheEUdecidedtoconcludeanagreementwiththeTurkishGovernmentonthesubjectofthemigrationcrisis.IntheabsenceofanyactofaninstitutionoftheEU,thelegalityofwhichitcouldreviewunderArticle263TFEU,theCourtdeclaresthatitlacksjurisdictiontohearanddeterminetheactionsbroughtbythethreeasylumseekers.

4

ORDER OF THE CJEU (12/9/2018)

•  Inthepresentcase,theappealsareincoherent•  Theappealsarethereforeinadmissibleintheirentirety•  Theappealmustbedismissedasmanifestlyinadmissible

5

CASES C-490/16 A.S. & C-646/16 JAFARI •  In2016aSyriannationalandthemembersoftwoAfghanfamiliescrossedtheborderbetweenCroatiaandSerbia,eventhoughtheywerenotinpossessionofanappropriatevisa.TheCroatianauthoritiesorganisedtransportforthosepersonstotheCroatia-SloveniaborderwiththeaimofassistingtheminmovingontootherMemberStatesinordertomakeanapplicationforinternationalprotectionthere.

•  TheSyriannationalmadesuchanapplicationinSlovenia,whereasthemembersoftheAfghanfamiliesdidsoinAustria.

•  SloveniaandAustriatooktheviewthat,astheapplicantshadenteredCroatiaunlawfully,accordingtoDublinitwasfortheauthoritiesofthatMStoexaminetheirapplicationsforinternationalprotection.

6

A.S. & JAFARI - CJEU

Ø Croatiaisresponsibleforexaminingapplicationsforinternationalprotectionbypersonswhocrosseditsborderenmasseduringthe2015-2016migrationcrisis

Ø ThosepersonsmustberegardedashavingcrossedtheexternalborderofCroatiairregularlywithinthemeaningoftheDublinIIIRegulation

Ø AMSwhichhasdecidedonhumanitariangroundstoauthorisetheentryonitsterritoryofanon-EUnationalwhodoesnothaveavisaandisnotentitledtovisawaivercannotbeabsolvedoftheresponsibilitytoexaminetheasylumapplication

7

N.D & N.T. V. SPAIN •  ImmediatereturntoMoroccooftwonationalsofMaliandCôted’IvoirewhoattemptedtoentertheSpanishterritoryfromMoroccobyclimbingthefencessurroundingMelilla,togetherwithtwogroupsofmorethan600individuals

•  AstheyreachedtheSpanishground,theywereapprehendedbytheSpanishpolice,whohandcuffedthemandhandedthemovertotheMoroccanauthorities,withoutundertakinganyidentificationprocedureandwithoutenablingN.D.andN.T.toexplaintheirpersonalcircumstances

8

ECtHR: N.D & N.T. •  TheapplicantschosenottomakeuseoftheofficialentryprocedurestoentertheSpanishterritorylawfully

•  Instead,theytookadvantageofthefactthattheywerepartofalargegroupofindividualswhichusedforceinitsattempttocrosstheborderØ Thelackofindividualremovaldecisionscouldbeattributedtotheapplicants’unlawfulbehaviour

Ø NoviolationofArt.4ofProtocolNo.4(prohibitionofcollectiveexpulsion)andArt.13ECHR(righttoaneffectiveremedy)

9

ECtHR: N.D & N.T. •  2conditionsfordeterminingwhetherthesituationcanbeattributedas“theapplicant’sownbehaviour”:Ø whetherthestateprovides"genuineandeffectiveaccesstomeansoflegalentry,inparticularborderproceduresforthosewhohavearrivedattheborder”

Ø whetherthereisan"absenceofcogentreasonswhytheapplicantdidnotmakeuseofofficialentryprocedures,whichwerebasedonobjectivefactsforwhichtherespondentstatewasresponsible”

10

N.D & N.T. – OPEN ISSUES •  EU–TurkeyStatement↔Stateresponsibilityinasituationwheretheapplicantdoesnotmakeuseoftheofficialentryprocedures

•  DoestheECtHR’sevaluationofthelegalityofexpulsionapply:•  onlytocaseswheremigrantsarriveenmasseoralsowheretheyarriveindividually?

•  incasemigrantsdidnotuseforce,butjuststoodattheborder?

Ø  WouldtheECtHR’sruledifferentlyincaseofanindividualattempttocrosstheborderwhichwasdevoidofanysecuritythreat?

Ø  WhatcriteriawouldECtHRusetomeasuretheexistenceofsuchathreat?

11

CONCLUDING REMARKS

•  WouldblockingmigrantsfromenteringGreecegetjudicialapproval,incaseofareferencetoECtHR?

•  SignaltotheCJEU,shoulditbeconfrontedwithasimilarcase?

12

Copyright: Iris Goldner Lang This presentation is protected by copyright and its origin should be acknowledged in

any use made thereof.