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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
OJ 2008 L 348/98, 24 December 2008.
- 2.
- 3.
In addition, the Directive does not preclude imposing (non-custodial) pecuniary penal sanctions during return proceedings (CJEU 2012, § 36).
- 4.
- 5.
- 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.
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.
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.
- 10.
For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).
- 11.
- 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.
These countries include CH, FI, HR, NO, RO, and SE. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).
- 14.
These countries include LT, LV, MT, NO, and RO. For precise reference to these domestic provisions, see Chap. 8 in Majcher (2019).
- 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.
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.
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.
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
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
Chacón JM (2009) Managing migration through crime. Colum Law Rev Sidebar 109:135–148
CJEU (2009) Kadzoev. C-357/09 PPU
CJEU (2011a) Achughbabian. C-329/11
CJEU (2011b) El Dridi. C.61-11 PPU
CJEU (2012) Md Sagor. C-430/11
CJEU (2014a) Bero and Bouzalmate. C-473/13 and C-514/13
CJEU (2014b) Mahdi. C-146/14 PPU
CJEU (2015) Zh. and O. C.554/13
CJEU (2017) Al Chodor. C-528/15
Cole D (2002) Aid of removal: due process limits on immigration detention. Emory Law J 51:1003–1039
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
Council of the European Union (2015) Council conclusions on measures to handle the refugee and migration crisis
De Giorgi A (2006) Re-thinking the political economy of punishment: perspectives on post-fordism and penal politics. Ashgate, Aldershot
Demleitner NV (2002) Immigration threats and rewards: effective law enforcement tools in the “War” on terrorism? Emory Law J 51:1059–1094
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
De Senarclens C (2013) State reluctance to use alternatives to detention. Forced Migr Rev 44:60–62
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
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
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
ECtHR (1976) Engel and others v. the Netherlands. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72
ECtHR (1981) X v. the United Kingdom. 7215/75
ECtHR (1984a) Öztürk v. Germany. 8544/79
ECtHR (1984b) De Jong, Baljet and Van Den Brink v. the Netherlands. 8805/79, 8806/79, 9242/81
ECtHR (1986) Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland. 9862/82
ECtHR (1993a) Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain. 12952/87
ECtHR (1993b) Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands. 14448/88
ECtHR (1996) Chahal v. the United Kingdom. 22414/93
ECtHR (2000a) Maaouia v. France. 39652/98
ECtHR (2000b) Jablonski v. Poland. 33493/96
ECtHR (2002) Conka v. Belgium. 51564/99
ECtHR (2003) Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom. 39665/98 and 40086/98. GC
ECtHR (2006) McKay v. the United Kingdom. 543/03. GC
ECtHR (2008) Sadaykov v. Bulgaria. 75157/01
ECtHR (2009a) A. and Others v. the United Kingdom. 3455/05. GC
ECtHR (2009b) Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey. 30471/08
ECtHR (2009c) Mikolenko v. Estonia. 10664/05
ECtHR (2010) Massoud v. Malta. 24340/08
ECtHR (2013) Musa v. Malta. 42337/12
ECtHR (2015) Allah v. Latvia. 66166/13
ECtHR (2016) Richmond Yaw and Others v. Italy. 3342/11, 3391/11, 3408/11 and 3447/11
European Commission (2014) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on EU Return Policy. COM(2014) 199
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
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
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
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
European Law Institute (2017) Statement of the European Law Institute: detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants and the rule of law
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014) Criminalisation of migrants in an irregular situation and of persons engaging with them
Flemish Refugee Action, Detention Action, Menedék, France terre d’asile, ECRE (2014) Point of no return: the futile detention of unreturnable migrants
García Hernández CC (2015) Crimmigration law. ABA, Chicago
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
HRC (1997) A. v. Australia. 560/1993
HRC (2006) Shafiq v. Australia. 1324/2004
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
Kanstroom D (2000) Deportation, social control, and punishment: some thoughts about why hard laws make bad cases. Harvard Law Rev 113:1890–1935
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
Legomsky SH (2007) The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms. Washington Lee Law Rev 64:469–528
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
Majcher I, Flynn M, Grange M (2020) Immigration detention in the European Union: in the shadow of the “Crisis”. Springer, Switzerland
Miller TA (2003) Citizenship and severity: recent immigration reforms and the new penology. Georgetown Immigr Law J 17:611–666
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
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
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2010) Resolution 1707(2010): Detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe
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
SRHRM (2009) Addendum: communications sent to governments and replies received. A/HRC/11/7/Add.1
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
SRHRM (2013) FRA-ECtHR seminar on European law on asylum. Conclud Rem, Borders and Immigration
Stumpf JP (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. Am Univ Law Rev 56:367–419
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
Tonry M (2011) Punishment. In: Tonry M (ed) The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 95–125
WGAD (2010) Report of the working group on arbitrary detention: thematic considerations: administrative detention and habeas corpus. A/HRC/13/30
WGAD (2011) Report of the working group on arbitrary detention. Annex. A/HRC/16/47
WGAD (2018) Revised deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants
Wilsher D (2012) Immigration detention: law, history, politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)