Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

After Entry: Criminalisation as Risk Management, Detention and Removal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 1642 Accesses

Abstract

In addition to the use of substantive criminal law to enable the prosecution of immigration-related offences, a key strand of the criminalisation of migration is the emphasis on the exclusion of migrants from the legal safeguards applicable in the jurisdiction once they have entered the territory and the strong priority for the EU and its Member States of the removal of irregular migrants from their territory. Exclusion and removal have far-reaching negative human rights and rule of law implications for migrants, especially in cases where the latter are considered to be high-risk.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

    Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29.4.2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees, OJ L304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.

  2. 2.

    Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, OJ L337/9, 20.12.2011.

  3. 3.

    For an overview see Guild and Garlick (2011).

  4. 4.

    For an overview, see Goodwin-Gill (2008).

  5. 5.

    See Mathew (2008).

  6. 6.

    Article 12(2)(b).

  7. 7.

    Article 12(2)(c).

  8. 8.

    Article 17(1)(d).

  9. 9.

    Article 17(1)(b).

  10. 10.

    Article 14(4)(a).

  11. 11.

    Article 14(4)(b).

  12. 12.

    Guild and Garlick, call-out, p. 74.

  13. 13.

    Joined Cases C-57/09 and C-101/09, B and D, judgment of 9 November 2010. For a recent commentary, see Drywood (2014).

  14. 14.

    Paragraph 99. Emphasis added.

  15. 15.

    Paragraph 84.

  16. 16.

    Paragraph 88.

  17. 17.

    Paragraph 92.

  18. 18.

    Paragraph 93.

  19. 19.

    Preamble, recital 37.

  20. 20.

    For a background see Blake (2001).

  21. 21.

    Regulation 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ L50/1, 25.2.2003.

  22. 22.

    Preamble, recital 8. Emphasis added.

  23. 23.

    Chapter III of the Regulation, Articles 5–14.

  24. 24.

    Article 6.

  25. 25.

    Articles 7 and 8.

  26. 26.

    Article 9.

  27. 27.

    Article 10.

  28. 28.

    Guild (2004).

  29. 29.

    Mitsilegas (2006).

  30. 30.

    Article 17(1) and Preamble, recital 4.

  31. 31.

    Article 19(2).

  32. 32.

    Article 20(1)(e).

  33. 33.

    Case C-394/12, Abdullahi, judgment of 10 December 2013.

  34. 34.

    Paragraph 59.

  35. 35.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak Case C-245/11, K, Opinion of 27 June 2012, para 26, emphasis added.

  36. 36.

    House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union (2001–2002) Asylum Applications—Who Decides?, 19th Report, session 2001–2002, para 27.

  37. 37.

    Nicolaidis (2007).

  38. 38.

    Mitsilegas, call-out (The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition).

  39. 39.

    Preamble, recital 2.

  40. 40.

    Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S. and M.E., judgment of 21 December 2011, hereinafter N.S.

  41. 41.

    Paragraph 99.

  42. 42.

    Paragraph 100.

  43. 43.

    Paragraph 104.

  44. 44.

    Paragraphs 95–97.

  45. 45.

    Paragraph 98.

  46. 46.

    M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, judgment of 21 January 2011, Application No 30696/09.

  47. 47.

    Moreno-Lax (2012).

  48. 48.

    Hirsi Jamaa, Application no. 27765/09, concerning the transfer of asylum seekers from Italy to Libya.

  49. 49.

    Paragraph 85.

  50. 50.

    Paragraph 94.

  51. 51.

    Paragraph 78.

  52. 52.

    Paragraph 81.

  53. 53.

    Paragraph 83.

  54. 54.

    Paragraph 84.

  55. 55.

    Paragraphs 84 and 85.

  56. 56.

    Mitsilegas (2012).

  57. 57.

    Labayle (2011).

  58. 58.

    Mitsilegas, call-out (The Limits of Mutual Trust).

  59. 59.

    3151st Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 8 March 2012.

  60. 60.

    Case C-528/11, Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantiste pri Ministerskia savet, judgment of 30 May 2013.

  61. 61.

    Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), OJ L180/31, 29.6.2013.

  62. 62.

    See Chap. III of the Regulation, Articles 7–15.

  63. 63.

    Article 27(3).

  64. 64.

    Article 7(3).

  65. 65.

    Article 17(2).

  66. 66.

    Case C-648/11, MA, BT and DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, judgment of 6 June 2013, para 55.

  67. 67.

    Case C-245/11, K v Bundesasylamt, judgment of 6 November 2012.

  68. 68.

    Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ L326/13, 13.12.2005.

  69. 69.

    Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), OJ L180/60, 29.6.2013.

  70. 70.

    Article 31(8).

  71. 71.

    Article 31(8)(b). The Directive expands on the concept of safe country of origin in Article 36.

  72. 72.

    Article 31(8)(h) and (i).

  73. 73.

    Article 31(8)(d).

  74. 74.

    Article 31(8)(c).

  75. 75.

    Article 31(8)(j).

  76. 76.

    Preamble, recital 42. Emphasis added.

  77. 77.

    Case C-69/10, Diouf, Judgment of 28.7.2011. For a commentary, see Reneman (2014).

  78. 78.

    Article 33.

  79. 79.

    Article 33(2)(c).

  80. 80.

    Article 39(1). On the criteria for a country to be considered as such see Article 39(2). The country: has ratified and observes the provisions of the Geneva Convention without geographical limitations; has in place an asylum procedure prescribed by law; and has ratified the ECHR and observes its provisions, including the standards relating to effective remedies. According to the Preamble to the Directive, these countries observe ‘particularly high human rights and refugee protection standards’ (recital 45).

  81. 81.

    For an analysis of the potential impact of the 2005 asylum procedures Directive in this context, see Costello (2005).

  82. 82.

    Article 34(1).

  83. 83.

    Article 38(2), emphasis added. Under a new provision introduced in the 2013 procedures Directive, the applicant must also be allowed to challenge the existence of a connection between him or her and the third country-Ibid.

  84. 84.

    Preamble, recital 44.

  85. 85.

    Article 46(1)(a)(ii) and (iv) respectively.

  86. 86.

    Article 46(5).

  87. 87.

    Article 46(6)(d).

  88. 88.

    Preamble, recital 46.

  89. 89.

    For an analysis see N. Coleman, European Readmission Policy, Nijhoff, 2008. On the relationship between re-admission agreements concluded by Member States and EU law, see Panizzon (2012).

  90. 90.

    Council Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions of third-country nationals, OJ L149/34, 2.6.2001.

  91. 91.

    Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L348/98, 24.12.2008.

  92. 92.

    Article 1.

  93. 93.

    The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, OJ C53/1, 3.3.2005, para 1.6.4. See also recital 2 in the Preamble of the returns Directive.

  94. 94.

    See Acosta (2009).

  95. 95.

    COM (2005) 391 final, Brussels, 1.9.2005.

  96. 96.

    For an analysis see Baldaccini (2009a), Acosta call-out.

  97. 97.

    Article 11(1).

  98. 98.

    Article 11(2).

  99. 99.

    Article 11(3).

  100. 100.

    Article 11(5).

  101. 101.

    According to Article 15(1) of the Directive, Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process—in particular when:

    1. (a)

      there is a risk of absconding or

    2. (b)

      the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process.

  102. 102.

    Ibid.

  103. 103.

    Ibid. Emphasis added.

  104. 104.

    Article 15(6).

  105. 105.

    The Directive has attempted to introduce common standards in a highly diverse field, with some Member States having established clearly determined and limited periods of detention under their national law, while others not having laid down any maximum time limit for pre-removal detention in their national law—see European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2011).

  106. 106.

    Cornelisse (2012).

  107. 107.

    Baldaccini (2009b). As Baldaccini eloquently notes, this is an extremely long period for depriving irregular migrants of their liberty for the sole reason of facilitating their removal and preventing them from absconding in the meantime.

  108. 108.

    United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Francois Crépeau: Regional Study: Management of the External Borders of the European Union and its impact on the human rights of migrants, 24 April 2013, para 47.

  109. 109.

    C-357/09 PPU, Said Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov).

  110. 110.

    Paragraphs 22–24.

  111. 111.

    Paragraphs 53–54, emphasis added.

  112. 112.

    Paragraph 56, emphasis added.

  113. 113.

    Paragraph 68.

  114. 114.

    Paragraphs 69–70.

  115. 115.

    Paragraphs 60–61.

  116. 116.

    Paragraph 63.

  117. 117.

    Paragraph 64. Emphasis added.

  118. 118.

    Paragraph 65.

  119. 119.

    Paragraph 66.

  120. 120.

    Application No 58149/08.

  121. 121.

    Paragraphs 74–75.

  122. 122.

    Paragraph 79, emphasis added.

  123. 123.

    Paragraph 72. The Court noted that a similar point was recently made by the ECJ in relation to Article 15 of the returns directive. It should however be pointed out that unlike that provision Article 5(1)(f) ECHR does not lay down maximum time-limits: the question whether the length of deportation proceedings could affect the lawfulness of detention under this provision thus depends solely on the particular circumstances of each case.

  124. 124.

    Case C-534/11, judgment of 30 May 2013.

  125. 125.

    Paragraph 25.

  126. 126.

    Paragraphs 40–49.

  127. 127.

    Paragraphs 53 and 54 respectively.

  128. 128.

    Paragraphs 55–56.

  129. 129.

    Paragraph 57, emphasis added.

  130. 130.

    Paragraph 58.

  131. 131.

    Paragraph 60.

  132. 132.

    Arslan, para 52. Kadzoev, para 45.

  133. 133.

    Case C-146/14 PPU, Mahdi, judgment of 5 June 2014.

  134. 134.

    Paragraph 65.

  135. 135.

    Paragraph 73.

  136. 136.

    Paragraph 66.

  137. 137.

    Paragraph 67.

  138. 138.

    Paragraph 68, and reference to para 58.

  139. 139.

    Paragraph 69, and reference to para 61.

  140. 140.

    Paragraph 70.

  141. 141.

    See also para 64 of the judgment.

  142. 142.

    Paragraph 85, emphasis added.

  143. 143.

    Paragraph 82.

  144. 144.

    Paragraph 89.

  145. 145.

    Case C-383/13 PPU, M.G. and N.R. v Staatsecretaris van Veligheid en Justitie, judgment of 10 September 2013.

  146. 146.

    Paragraph 39.

  147. 147.

    Paragraph 40.

  148. 148.

    Paragraph 41.

  149. 149.

    Paragraph 42.

  150. 150.

    Paragraph 44.

  151. 151.

    Case C-474/13, Thi Ly Pham, judgment of 17 July 2014.

  152. 152.

    Paragraph 17.

  153. 153.

    Paragraph 19. Emphasis added.

  154. 154.

    Paragraph 21. Emphasis added.

  155. 155.

    Paragraph 23.

  156. 156.

    Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13, Brero and Bouzamate, judgment of 17 July 2014.

  157. 157.

    Paragraph 34.

  158. 158.

    For an analysis of El Dridi see Chap. 3.

  159. 159.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 30.4.2014, Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13, Brero and Bouzalmate, para 92.

  160. 160.

    On the symbolic and political functions of removal, see Cornelisse (2010).

  161. 161.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on EU Return Policy, COM (2014) 99 final, Brussels, 28.3.2014.

References

  • Acosta, D. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly in EU migration law: Is the European Parliament becoming bad and ugly? (The Adoption of Directive 2008/15: The Returns Directive). European Journal of Migration and Law, 1(1), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldaccini, A. (2009a). The EU directive on return: Principles and protests. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 28(4), 114–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldaccini, A. (2009b). The return and removal of irregular migrants under EU law: An analysis of the returns directive. European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, N. (2001). The Dublin convention and rights of asylum seekers in the European Union. In E. Guild & C. Harlow (Eds.), Implementing Amsterdam (pp. 95–115). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelisse, G. (2010). Immigration detention and the territoriality of human rights. In N. de Genova & N. Peutz (Eds.), The deportation regime. Sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement (pp. 101–122). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, C. (2005). The asylum procedures directive and the proliferation of third country practices. European Journal of Migration and Law, 7, 35–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drywood, E. (2014). Who’s in and who’s out? The court’s emerging case law on the definition of a refugee. Common Market Law Review, 51, 1093–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2011). Detention of third-country nationals in return procedures, pp. 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin-Gill, G. (2008). Forced migration: Refugees, rights and security. In J. McAdam (Ed.), Forced migration, human rights and security (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E. (2004). Seeking asylum: Storm clouds between international commitments and EU legislative measures. European Law Review, 29, 198–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E., & Garlick, M. (2011). Refugee protection counter-terrorism and exclusion in the European Union. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 29, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labayle, H. (2011). Le Droit Européen de ‘Asile devant ses Juges: précisions ou remise en question? RFDA:273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathew, P. (2008). Resolution 1373—A call to Pre-empt asylum seekers? In J. McAdam (Ed.), Forced migration, human rights and security (pp. 19–62). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2006). The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Market Law Review, 43, 1277–1311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2012). The limits of mutual trust in Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice. From automatic interstate cooperation to the slow emergence of the individual. Yearbook of European Law, 31, 319–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Lax, V. (2012). Dismantling the Dublin system: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece. European Journal of Migration and Law, 14, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaidis, K. (2007). Trusting the poles? Constructing Europe through mutual recognition. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 682–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panizzon, M. (2012). Readmission agreements of EU member states: A case for EU subsidiarity or Dualism? Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31, 101–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reneman, M. (2014). Speedy asylum procedures in the EU: Striking a fair balance between the need to process asylum cases efficiently and the asylum applicant’s EU right to an effective remedy. International Journal of Refugee Law, 25, 717–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Valsamis Mitsilegas

Authors
  1. Valsamis Mitsilegas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valsamis Mitsilegas .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mitsilegas, V. (2015). After Entry: Criminalisation as Risk Management, Detention and Removal. In: The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12658-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation