Automatic removals condemned by European Court of Human Rights

Germany's “Seehofer Deal” denies legal guarantees to asylum seekers

Germany – Pushbacks – “Seehofer Deal”

Germany and Greece concluded the so-called “Seehofer Deal” in 2018. The administrative agreement named after former German Minister of Interior, Horst Seehofer, regulated the automatic removal of people on the move from Germany back to Greece within 48 hours if they had already applied for asylum there.

This is what happened to Syrian asylum seeker H.T. when he arrived to Germany in September 2018: he was arrested and forcibly returned to Greece on the same day and denied access to any procedure to legally challenge his removal. Back in Greece, he was detained awaiting a forced return to Turkey. 

In its ruling on 15 October 2024, the European Court of Human Rights found that the automatic removal of H.T. was unlawful. The Court identified faults in administrative agreements such as the Seehofer deal which excludes necessary protections for asylum seekers before their removal. In its decision the Court clearly set out states' duties and the legal safeguards owed to asylum seekers.

Case

H.T. filed an individual complaint against Germany and Greece before the European Court of Human Rights in March 2019 with the support of the Greek Council for Refugees. He argued that his return by Germany as well as his treatment and detention in Greece violated 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 European Convention on Human Rights (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, as later set out in the Court's decision. In their intervention, ECCHR and its partners emphasized that Germany must grant people on the move access to a procedure to assess the risks in the destination country of removal, in this case Greece, including risks of inhumane detention conditions, general deficiencies in the asylum system, inhumane living conditions, as well as possible chain pushbacks.

Germany was found by the European Court of Human Rights to have violated its obligations under Article 3 ECHR, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. German officers gave H.T. false information about the country of destination of his removal and its legal basis, he was not told how he could take legal action against his removal and he had no access to legal advice or an interpreter.

The administrative agreement also lacked necessary legal guarantees, the court established. Above all, Germany should have examined whether H.T. would have effective access to an asylum procedure in Greece and had a duty to ascertain that he would not be exposed to human rights violations there. In fact, the conditions under which H.T. was detained in Greece were also found to be in violation of Article 3 ECHR.

Context

The Seehofer Deal made between Germany’s Ministry of the Interior and the Greek Ministry of Migration aimed to circumvent the legal safeguards for people on the move laid out in EU law (such as the Dublin III Regulation). Germany has also argued that under German law 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 (according to Paragraph 18 of the German Asylum Law (AsylG).

Since EU law has primacy over national law, states cannot choose to circumvent it by signing bilateral agreements with other countries. The Dublin regulation in EU law determines which EU Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application. In addition, the Asylum Procedure Directive in EU law obliges states to examine any asylum claim made on their territory, including at the border. If it is later established that a different EU Member State is responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure, the person may be transferred to the respective state – unless conditions in that destination country might result in inhuman or degrading treatment of the applicant. Each removal decision must therefore be carefully and independently assessed prior to its execution.

For more information (in German) on automatic removals in Germany, read our Q & A.

Documents (2)

Press (2)

Partners

Glossary (4)

Definition

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights sets out agreed standards of human rights and fundemental freedoms in Europe.

Show More

Topics (1)

Insight

Pushbacks

Illegal pushbacks or forced returns at EU borders represent a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights and refugee laws. 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.

Show More

Map

To display Google Maps we need your

consent to marketing cookies

By doing so, you accept the data protection declaration of ECCHR and Google Maps