“Seehofer Deal” denies access to asylum procedures and effective remedy

Automatic removals from Germany to Greece

Germany – Pushbacks – “Seehofer Deal”

Germany and Greece concluded the so-called Seehofer Deal in 2018. The administrative agreement named after German Minister of Interior Horst Seehofer says: migrants and refugees who have already applied for asylum in Greece and arrive to Germany via Austria should be refused entry and returned to Greece within 48 hours.

This is what happened to Syrian asylum seeker HT when he arrived to Germany in September 2018: he was arrested and forcibly returned to Greece on the same day. He was denied access to any procedure or effective remedy in Germany. Back in Greece, he was detained awaiting a forced return to Turkey. However, automatic removals under the Seehofer Deal – which deny any possibility to independently challenge, scrutinize and, or if necessary stop the removal– violate both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU law.

Case

To challenge his automatic removal, HT filed an individual complaint against Germany and Greece before the European Court of Human Rights in March 2019. HT alleges that his forced return by Germany as well as his treatment and detention in Greece violate Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR.    

ECCHR and its partners PRO ASYL and Refugee Support Aegean submitted a Third Party Intervention to the court in October 2020 analyzing the legal implications of automatic removals with regards to the ECHR and EU law. In their intervention, ECCHR and its partners emphasize that Germany must grant refugees and migrants access to a procedure to assess the various risks in the destination country, in this case Greece. These risks include: inhuman detention conditions, general deficiencies in the asylum system, the risk of a chain refoulement (expulsion) to Turkey, as well as inhuman living conditions.

Context

The Seehofer Deal, made between Germany’s Ministry of the Interior and the Greek Ministry of Migration, aims to circumvent the legal safeguards for refugees and migrants laid out in the Dublin III Regulation. In defence of this agreement, Germany argues that according to Paragraph 18 of the German Asylum Law (AsylG), asylum seekers can be refused entry at the border if they arrive via a “safe third country” or if another European state is responsible for their asylum procedure.

As EU law has primacy over national law, states cannot choose to circumvent it by signing bilateral agreements with other EU member states. Dublin III determines which European state should be responsible for examining an asylum application. Furthermore, the Asylum Procedure Directive obliges states to examine any asylum claim made if on their territory, including at the border. If it is then found that another EU state is responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure, the person may be transferred to the respective state – unless conditions in the respective destination country might result in inhuman or degrading treatment of the applicant. This was the case regarding Greece. Each removal decision must therefore be carefully and independently assessed prior to its execution.

Documents (2)

Partners

Glossary (4)

Definition

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms came into force in 1953. The Convention can only be ratified by member states of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg oversees the enforcement of the obligations set out in the Convention.

Topics (1)

Insight

Pushbacks

Kilometers of barbed wire exclusion fences, thousands of high-tech patrols at sea, in the air and on land, pushback agreements with neighboring countries: the European Union goes to great lengths to exclude people fleeing from war, persecution and hardship in their home countries. To justify their actions leaders in Brussels and the EU member states claim the pushbacks are politically necessary and permitted under law.

Every other week another boat carrying migrants and refugees capsizes or sinks off the coast of Italy or Malta. Witnesses frequently report instances of abuse at the borders between Turkey and Greece. There is a steady climb in the number of people who lose their lives while trying to cross the Moroccan-Spanish border. All of these events serve as evidence of the terrible failure of the EU’s asylum and refugee policies.

Illegal pushbacks or forced returns at EU borders represent a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights and refugee laws. In the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the northern coast of Africa, refugees and migrants are repeatedly subjected to brutal violence from border guards. Anyone attempting to enter these Spanish cities – and thereby reach EU territory – is immediately deported to Morocco without any examination of their right to asylum.

Since 2014, ECCHR has been examining the scope for legal intervention against the practice of pushbacks in the EU and has been helping affected persons with individual legal proceedings.

Map

Discover our Living Open Archive