Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of the EU Return Policy at All Costs: The Punitive Use of Administrative Pre-removal Detention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Causes and Consequences of Migrant Criminalization

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 81))

Abstract

This chapter argues that despite its formal administrative label, pre-removal detention regulated under the European Union (EU) Directive 2008/115/EC (hereafter Returns Directive) is not limited to non-punitive purposes. In the context of the EU’s current measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the return policy, the punitive potential of detention-relation provisions of the Directive became flagrant. The underlying rationale behind the current interpretation of the Directive is a policy of deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. While immigration detention under EU law may be in practice punitive in nature, the protective features that accompany criminal processes are not always assured within immigration procedures, because of their administrative classification. This gap—the crimmigration phenomenon—allows states to benefit from the broader discretion typical of administrative proceedings and exacerbates migrants’ vulnerability. As the chapter concludes, to tackle the crimmigration phenomenon within the EU pre-removal detention regime, arguments should focus on the prohibition of arbitrary detention and the right to an effective remedy, benefiting every detainee.

The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of ECRE. This chapter had been finalised in August 2018, hence before the European Commission proposed a recast of the Returns Directive which includes issues relevant to the discussion in the chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    OJ 2008 L 348/98, 24 December 2008.

  2. 2.

    These countries include AT, DE, FR, HR, LT, LV, and SE. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019). See also the annex to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014).

  3. 3.

    In addition, the Directive does not preclude imposing (non-custodial) pecuniary penal sanctions during return proceedings (CJEU 2012, § 36).

  4. 4.

    For a discussion on the punitive nature of formally administrative immigration detention in the United States, see García Hernández (2015) and in the Netherlands, see Leerkes and Broeders (2013).

  5. 5.

    For a discussion on deterrent function of deportation or detention, see Demleitner (2002, 1068–71), Kanstroom (2000, 1893–94), Leerkes and Broeders (2013, 82), and Legomsky (2007, 514–15).

  6. 6.

    These countries include AT, CY, EE, EL, LT, LV, MT, and NO. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  7. 7.

    These countries include AT, DE, EL, FI, NO, SI, and SK. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  8. 8.

    These countries include DE, EE, FR, LT, LU, LV, NL, and SI. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  9. 9.

    For a discussion on retributive function of deportation, see Kanstroom (2000, 1893–1894) and Legomsky (2007, 514–515).

  10. 10.

    For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  11. 11.

    For a discussion on incapacitative function of deportation or detention, see Demleitner (2002, 1068–1071), Kanstroom (2000, 1893–1894), Leerkes and Broeders (2013, 82), and Legomsky (2007, 514–515).

  12. 12.

    The countries include CZ, DE, EL, FI, LT, and NL. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  13. 13.

    These countries include CH, FI, HR, NO, RO, and SE. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  14. 14.

    These countries include LT, LV, MT, NO, and RO. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  15. 15.

    These countries include CY, EE, EL, HU, LV, NL, NO, PT, and SI. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).

  16. 16.

    The 18-month period is set forth in legislation of BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, HR, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, RO, and SK; while the 12-month period is applicable in FI, HU, IT, SE, and SI.

  17. 17.

    This sections aims to briefly outline the main differences in procedural protections under the ECHR applicable to criminal detainees, compared to administrative detainees. However, stronger procedural safeguards can be, arguably, implied from Article 5(4) of the ECHR, as supported by a consistent body of recommendations of international human rights bodies, see Chap. 9 in Majcher (2019).

  18. 18.

    See also De Senarclens (2013) who argues that the states’ reluctance to use the alternatives to detention relates precisely to hidden criminal law functions that immigration detention fulfils.

References

  • Billings P (2019) Crimmigration in Australia: law, Politics, and Society. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth M, Turnbull S (2015) Immigration detention, punishment, and the criminalization of migration. In: Pickering S, Ham J (eds) The Routledge handbook on crime and international migration. Routledge, New York, pp 91–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Chacón JM (2009) Managing migration through crime. Colum Law Rev Sidebar 109:135–148

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2009) Kadzoev. C-357/09 PPU

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2011a) Achughbabian. C-329/11

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2011b) El Dridi. C.61-11 PPU

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2012) Md Sagor. C-430/11

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2014a) Bero and Bouzalmate. C-473/13 and C-514/13

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2014b) Mahdi. C-146/14 PPU

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2015) Zh. and O. C.554/13

    Google Scholar 

  • CJEU (2017) Al Chodor. C-528/15

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole D (2002) Aid of removal: due process limits on immigration detention. Emory Law J 51:1003–1039

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelisse G (2012) Detention of foreigners. In: Guild E, Minderhoud P (eds) The first decade of EU migration and asylum law. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 207–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2015) Council conclusions on measures to handle the refugee and migration crisis

    Google Scholar 

  • De Giorgi A (2006) Re-thinking the political economy of punishment: perspectives on post-fordism and penal politics. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Demleitner NV (2002) Immigration threats and rewards: effective law enforcement tools in the “War” on terrorism? Emory Law J 51:1059–1094

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrick T (2013) The foreign-born in the canadian federal correctional population. In: Guia MJ, Van der Woude M, Van der Leun J (eds) Social control and justice: crimmigration in the age of fear. Eleven, The Hague, pp 199–229

    Google Scholar 

  • De Senarclens C (2013) State reluctance to use alternatives to detention. Forced Migr Rev 44:60–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmond A (2013) Irregular immigrants and their Irish citizen children. In: Guia MJ, Van der Woude M, Van der Leun J (eds) Social control and justice: crimmigration in the age of fear. Eleven, The Hague, pp 303–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolinko D (2011) Punishment. In: Deigh J, Dolinko D (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 403–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff A (2005) Punishment and the morality of law. In: Claes E, Foqué R, Peters T (eds) Punishment, restorative justice and the morality of law. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 121–143

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1976) Engel and others v. the Netherlands. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1981) X v. the United Kingdom. 7215/75

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1984a) Öztürk v. Germany. 8544/79

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1984b) De Jong, Baljet and Van Den Brink v. the Netherlands. 8805/79, 8806/79, 9242/81

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1986) Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland. 9862/82

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1993a) Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain. 12952/87

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1993b) Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands. 14448/88

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (1996) Chahal v. the United Kingdom. 22414/93

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2000a) Maaouia v. France. 39652/98

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2000b) Jablonski v. Poland. 33493/96

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2002) Conka v. Belgium. 51564/99

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2003) Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom. 39665/98 and 40086/98. GC

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2006) McKay v. the United Kingdom. 543/03. GC

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2008) Sadaykov v. Bulgaria. 75157/01

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2009a) A. and Others v. the United Kingdom. 3455/05. GC

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2009b) Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey. 30471/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2009c) Mikolenko v. Estonia. 10664/05

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2010) Massoud v. Malta. 24340/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2013) Musa v. Malta. 42337/12

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2015) Allah v. Latvia. 66166/13

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (2016) Richmond Yaw and Others v. Italy. 3342/11, 3391/11, 3408/11 and 3447/11

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on EU Return Policy. COM(2014) 199

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017a) Annex to the Commission Recommendation establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by member states’ competent authorities when carrying out return related tasks. C(2017) 6505

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017b) 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

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017c) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a more effective return policy in the European Union—A renewed action plan. COM(2017) 200

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017d) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Delivery of the European Agenda on Migration. COM(2017) 558

    Google Scholar 

  • European Law Institute (2017) Statement of the European Law Institute: detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants and the rule of law

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014) Criminalisation of migrants in an irregular situation and of persons engaging with them

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemish Refugee Action, Detention Action, Menedék, France terre d’asile, ECRE (2014) Point of no return: the futile detention of unreturnable migrants

    Google Scholar 

  • García Hernández CC (2015) Crimmigration law. ABA, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhill KM (2016) Open arms behind barred doors: fear, hypocrisy and policy schizophrenia in the European migration crisis. European Law J 22(3):317–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HRC (1997) A. v. Australia. 560/1993

    Google Scholar 

  • HRC (2006) Shafiq v. Australia. 1324/2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungarian Helsinki Committee (2015) Tightening criminal rules targeting refugees. http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/modification-of-criminal-laws-16092015.pdf

  • International Commission of Jurists (2012) The definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in customary international law: International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) submission to the working group on arbitrary detention

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanstroom D (2000) Deportation, social control, and punishment: some thoughts about why hard laws make bad cases. Harvard Law Rev 113:1890–1935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leerkes A, Broeders D (2013) Deportable and not so deportable: formal and informal functions of administrative immigration detention. In: Anderson B, Gibney MJ, Paoletti E (eds) The social, political and historical contours of deportation. Springer, New York, pp 79–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Legomsky SH (2007) The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms. Washington Lee Law Rev 64:469–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Majcher I (2014) The EU returns directive and the use of prisons for detaining migrants in Europe. EU Law Analysis. http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.ch/2014/07/the-eu-returns-directive-and-use-of.html

  • Majcher I (2017) Border securitization and containment versus fundamental rights: the European Union’s ‘Refugee Crisis’. Georgetown J Int Affairs. https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/border-securitization-and-containment-vs-fundamental-rights-the-european-unions-refugee-crisis

  • Majcher I (2019) The European Union Returns Directive and its Compatibility with International Human Rights Law: Analysis of Return Decision, Entry Ban, Detention, and Removal. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Majcher I, Flynn M, Grange M (2020) Immigration detention in the European Union: in the shadow of the “Crisis”. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TA (2003) Citizenship and severity: recent immigration reforms and the new penology. Georgetown Immigr Law J 17:611–666

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2016) Immigration detention, risk and human rights in the law of the European Union. Lessons from the returns directive. In: Guia MJ, Koulish R, Mitsilegas V (eds) Immigration detention, risk and human rights: studies on immigration and crime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Lax V, Giuffre M (2019) The Rise of consensual containment: from ‘Contactless Control’ to ‘Contactless Responsibility’ for forced migration flows. In: Juss S (ed) Research Handbook on international refugee law. Elgar, Cheltenham. pp 82–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2010) Resolution 1707(2010): Detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauw R (2000) A new look at deportation as punishment: why at least some of the constitution’s criminal procedure protections apply. Admin Law Rev 52:305–345

    Google Scholar 

  • SRHRM (2009) Addendum: communications sent to governments and replies received. A/HRC/11/7/Add.1

    Google Scholar 

  • SRHRM (2012) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human rights of migrants, François Crépeau: detention of migrants in an irregular situation. A/HRC/20/24

    Google Scholar 

  • SRHRM (2013) FRA-ECtHR seminar on European law on asylum. Conclud Rem, Borders and Immigration

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf JP (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. Am Univ Law Rev 56:367–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf JP (2013) The process in the punishment in crimmigration law. In: Franko Aas K, Bosworth M (eds) The borders of punishment: migration, citizenship, and social exclusion. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 58–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry M (2011) Punishment. In: Tonry M (ed) The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 95–125

    Google Scholar 

  • WGAD (2010) Report of the working group on arbitrary detention: thematic considerations: administrative detention and habeas corpus. A/HRC/13/30

    Google Scholar 

  • WGAD (2011) Report of the working group on arbitrary detention. Annex. A/HRC/16/47

    Google Scholar 

  • WGAD (2018) Revised deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsher D (2012) Immigration detention: law, history, politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izabella Majcher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Majcher, I. (2020). The Effectiveness of the EU Return Policy at All Costs: The Punitive Use of Administrative Pre-removal Detention. In: Kogovšek Šalamon, N. (eds) Causes and Consequences of Migrant Criminalization. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 81. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43732-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43732-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43731-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43732-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics