A Ubiquitous Border for Migrants in Transit and Their Rights: Analysis and Consequences of the Reintroduction of Internal Borders in France
In: European Journal of Migration and LawSearch for other papers by Iker Barbero in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Article 6.3 of the Return Directive 2008/115/EC allows a Member State to refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally in their territory if they are taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements between the two states. Due to a regressive interpretation of this precept, France has temporarily reinstated border controls and is summarily pushing back or even forcibly deporting undocumented migrants to Spain. This article will argue that the Return Directive does not repeal the obligation to follow a formal readmission procedure (which includes the recognition of a due process to the migrant) and that the French refus d’entrée (denial of entry) is not an adequate procedure for such cases. In other words, all rejections done without ‘taking charge’ of the undocumented migrants are in fact violating the Return Directive. One of the main conclusions is that recent legal reforms in France have given rise to a ubiquitous border regime that considers its borders with other Member States as external borders in order to avoid the (few) guarantees provided by European Union law.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
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 11, p. 19–39.
-
Anafé (2019). Persona non grata—Conséquences des politiques sécuritaires et migratoires à la frontière franco-italienne, Rapport d’observations 2017–2018, Paris: Anafé.
-
Atger, A.F. (2008). The abolition of internal border checks in an enlarged Schengen area: freedom of movement or a web of scattered security checks?. CEPS Challenge Paper No. 8, Brussels: CEPS, p. 20.
-
Baldaccini, A. (2009). The return and removal of irregular migrants under EU law: An analysis of the returns directive. European Journal of. Migration and Law 11, p. 1–17.
-
Barbero, I. (2018). The European Union never got rid of its internal controls: A case study of detention and readmission in the French-Spanish border. European Journal of Migration and Law 20(1), p. 1–27.
-
Barbero, I. & Donadio, G. (2019). La externalización interna de las fronteras en el control migratorio en la UE. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals 122, p. 137–162.
-
Bigo, D. (2009). Immigration controls and free movement in Europe. International Review of the Red Cross 91(875), p. 579–591.
-
Brouwer, E.R., Guild, E., Carrera, S., Vosiliûte, L., Groenendijk, C.A., Jeandebosz, J., & Martin-Mazé, M. (2016). Internal border controls in the Schengen area: Is Schengen crisis-proof?, Brussels: European Parliament, LIBE committee.
-
Carrera, S. (2020). The Strasbourg Court Judgement N.D. and N.T. v Spain A Carte Blanche to Push Backs at EU External Borders?, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2020/21, Florence: EUI.
-
Carrera, S. & Stefan, M. (2020). Fundamental Rights Challenges in Border Controls and Expulsion of Irregular Immigrants in the European Union Complaint Mechanisms and Access to Justice, Abingdon: Routledge.
-
CEAR (2020). Análisis de la Sentencia N.D. y N.T. contra España de 13 de febrero de 2020, https://www.cear.es/sentencia-tedh-devoluciones-en-caliente/, Madrid: CEAR.
-
Cimade (2018). Dedans, dehors: une Europe qui s’enferme, https://www.lacimade.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/La_Cimade_Schengen_Frontieres.pdf, Paris: La Cimade.
-
Costello, C. (2016). The Human Rights of Migrants in European Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
De Castro Sánchez, C. (2013). TEDH—Sentencia de 23.02. 2012 (Gran Sala), Hirsi Jamaa eac Italia, 27765/09. Artículo 3 y 13 del CEDH; Artículo 4 del Protocolo nº 4-Tortura y tratos inhumanos y degradantes-derecho a un recurso efectivo-prohibición de las expulsiones colectivas de ex. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 46, p. 1119–1135.
-
De Lucas, J. (2015). Mediterráneo: el naufragio de Europa. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
-
European Commission (2019). Member States’ notifications of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders pursuant to Article 25 et seq. of the Schengen Borders Code. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control/docs/ms_notifications_-_reintroduction_of_border_control_en.pdf, Brussels: European Commission.
-
Ferraro, F. (2013). Schengen governance after the Lisbon Treaty. Library Briefing, Library of the European Parliament 18/03/2013, Brussels: European Parliament.
-
GISTI (2019). L’accompagnement des demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile en procédure ‘Dublin’. Les notes practiques, https://www.gisti.org/spip.php?article6201, Paris: GISTI.
-
Groenendijk, K. (2004). Reinstatement of Controls at the Internal Borders of Europe: Why and Against Whom?, European Law Journal 10(2), p. 150–170.
-
Guild, E. (2009). Security and Migration in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Polity.
-
Guild, E., Carrera, S., Vosyliūtė, L., Groenendijk, K., Brouwer, E., Bigo, D., Julien Jeandesboz Médéric, J.J. & Martin-Mazé, M. (2016). Internal border controls in the Schengen area. Is Schengen crisis-proof?, Brussels: CEPS.
-
Guiraudon, V. (2000). European Courts and Foreigners’ Rights: A Comparative Study of Norms Diffusion. International Migration Review 34(4), p. 1088–1125.
-
Hennette-Vauchez, S. & Slama, S. (2018) État d’urgence: l’émergence d’un droit administratif de l’ennemi?, L’Actualité juridique. Droit administratif, p. 1801.
-
Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. Abingdon: Routledge.
-
Illamola Dausà, M. (2012). TJUE—Sentencia de 22.06.2010 Gran Sala, Aziz Melki y Sélim Abdeli, C-188/10 y C-189/10—Controles fronterizos y controles de identidad dentro del espacio Schengen. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 41, p. 205–220.
-
Ktistakis, Y. (2013). Protecting migrants under the European convention on human rights and the European social charter. A handbook for legal practitioners. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
-
Lasagabaster, I. (2009). Artículo 4. Prohibición de las expulsiones colectivas de extranjeros. Convenio europeo de derechos humanos: comentario sistemático. Civitas, p. 859–864.
-
Leonard, S. (2015). Border Controls as a Dimension of the European Union’s Counter-Terrorism Policy: A Critical Assessment, Intelligence and National Security 30:2–3, p. 306–332.
-
McClure, L. (2011). Suspending Schengen: Exceptions to the Schengen Agreement and the Legality of France’s Decision to Close Its Borders with Italy. Loyola University Chiago International Law Review 9(2), p. 327–346.
-
Migreurop (2020). European Court of Human Rights: Spain and the European Union will prevail the protection of European borders over the right to asylum, http://www.migreurop.org/article2954.html?lang=fr, Paris: Migreurop.
-
Pistoia, E. (2018). Il muro invisibile ma impervio di Ventimiglia. Federalismi.it 3, p. 1–16.
-
Slama, S. (2018). Du droit des étrangers à l’état d’urgence: des notes blanches au diapason. Plein droit 117, p. 37–42.
-
Solanes, A. (2017). Contra la normalización de la ilegalidad: la protección judicial de los extranjeros frente a las expulsiones colectivas y las devoluciones ‘en caliente’. Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho 36, p. 195–225.
-
Thym, D. (2020). A Restrictionist Revolution? A Counter-Intuitive Reading of the ECtHR’s N.D. & N.T. Judgment on ‘Hot Expulsions’. http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-restrictionist-revolution-a-counter-intuitive-reading-of-the-ecthrs-n-d-n-t-judgment-on-hot-expulsions/, VerfBlog, 2020/2/17.
-
Urrutia, I. (2009). Artículo 1. Garantías de procedimiento en caso de expulsión de extranjeros. Convenio europeo de derechos humanos: comentario sistemático, Civitas, p. 881–888.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1041 | 209 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 123 | 13 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 201 | 36 | 0 |
A Ubiquitous Border for Migrants in Transit and Their Rights: Analysis and Consequences of the Reintroduction of Internal Borders in France
In: European Journal of Migration and LawSearch for other papers by Iker Barbero in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Article 6.3 of the Return Directive 2008/115/EC allows a Member State to refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally in their territory if they are taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements between the two states. Due to a regressive interpretation of this precept, France has temporarily reinstated border controls and is summarily pushing back or even forcibly deporting undocumented migrants to Spain. This article will argue that the Return Directive does not repeal the obligation to follow a formal readmission procedure (which includes the recognition of a due process to the migrant) and that the French refus d’entrée (denial of entry) is not an adequate procedure for such cases. In other words, all rejections done without ‘taking charge’ of the undocumented migrants are in fact violating the Return Directive. One of the main conclusions is that recent legal reforms in France have given rise to a ubiquitous border regime that considers its borders with other Member States as external borders in order to avoid the (few) guarantees provided by European Union law.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1041 | 209 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 123 | 13 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 201 | 36 | 0 |