A Procedural Approach to the Public Interest in Migration Control when Applying Article 8 of the ECHR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2023.7.2.744Keywords:
Human Rights, Migration Law, Family Life, Article 8 of the ECHR, Family Unification, Migration ControlAbstract
This research explores the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR or the Court) application of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) when engaging the public interest in migration control. The study research explains the current case law of the Court and examines when the public interest in migration control can be applied as a legitimate aim. The research is questioning whether the public interest in controlling migration can be used as a legitimate aim when an interference of the right to family life has been established and whether the public interest in migration control should be seen as a static factor. The research claims that the Court’s unclear way of distinguishing between positive and negative obligations and its lack of assessing the public interests when balancing the personal interests against the public interests in controlling migration makes the case law inconsistent and unclear. In order to make the case law more consistent the research suggests that the Court should use a procedural approach like in cases where the State’s interest in public safety is engaged.
References
Arnardóttir, O. M. (2017). The “Procedural Turn” Under the European Convention on Human Rights and Presumptions of Convention Compliance. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(1), 9-35, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox008
Collinson, J. (2020). Reconstructing the European Court of Human Rights’ Article 8 Jurisprudence in Deportation Cases: The Family’s Right and the Public Interest. Human Rights Law Review, 20(2), 333-360, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa015
Collinson, J. (2020a). Making the best interests of the child a substantive human right at the centre of national level expulsion decisions. Netherland Quarterly of Human Rights, 38(3), 169-190, https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051920940167
Connelly, A. M. (1986). Problems of Interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 35(3), 567-593, https://www.jstor.org/stable/759770
Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, Updated on 31 August 2022.
Gerards, J. (2017). Procedural Review by the ECtHR: A Typology. In: J. Gerards and E. Brems (eds.), Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases (pp. 127-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316874844.006
Gerards, J. (2014). The European Court of Human Rights and the National Courts: Giving Shape to the Notion of “Shared Responsibility”. In: J. Gerards and J. Fleuren (eds.), Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Judgments of the ECtHR in National Case-law: A comparative analysis. (pp. 13-94), Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia.
Jacobsen, A. (2016). Children’s Rights in the European Court of Human Rights - An Emerging Power Structure. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 24(3), 548-574, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02403003
Kilkelly, U. (2010). Protecting Children’s Rights Under the ECHR: The Role of Positive Obligations. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 61(3), 245-261, https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v61i3.453
Klaassen, M. (2019). Between Facts and Norms: Testing Compliance with Article 8 ECHR in Immigration Cases. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 37(2), 157-177, https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051919844387
Leloup, M. (2019). The Principle of the Best Interests of the Child in the Expulsion Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural Rationality as a Remedy for Inconsistency. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 37(1), 50-68, https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051918820986
Milios, G. (2018). The Immigrants’ and Refugees’ Right to ‘Family Life’: How Relevant are the Principles Applied by the European Court of Human Rights? International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 25(3), 401-430, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02503001
Popelier, P. and van de Heyning, C. (2017). Subsidiarity Post-Brighton: Procedural Rationality as Answer? Leiden Journal of International Law, 30(1), 5-23, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156516000674
Schotel, B. (2012). On the Right of Exclusion: Law, Ethics and Immigration Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
van Buren, G. (2007). Child Rights in Europe: Convergence and Divergence in Judicial Protection. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, Updated on 31 August 2022.
ECtHR, Berrehab v. The Netherelands, app. no. 10730/84, 28 May 1988.
ECtHR, Nasri v. France, app. no.19465/92, 13 July 1995.
ECtHR, Gül v. Switzerland, app. no. 23218/94, 19 February 1996.
ECtHR, Boughanemi v. France, app. no. 22070/93, 24 April 1996.
ECtHR, Sen v. The Netherlands, app. no. 31465/96, 21 December 2001.
ECtHR, Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v the Netherlands, app. no. 50435/99, 31 January 2006.
ECtHR, Üner v. The Netherlands, app. no. 46410/99, 18 October 2006.
ECtHR, Konstantinov v. The Netherlands, app. no. 16351/03, 26 April 2007.
ECtHR, Omoregie and others v. Norway, app. no. 265/07, 31 July 2008.
ECtHR, Osman v. Denmark, app. no. 38058/09, 14 June 2011.
ECtHR, Nunez v. Norway, app. no. 55597/09, 28 June 2011.
ECtHR, Boultif v. Switzerland, app. no. 54273/00, 2 August 2011.
ECtHR, Antwi v. Norway, app. no. 26940/10, 14 February 2012.
ECtHR, Biraga and Others v. Sweden, app. no. 1722/10, 3 April 2012.
ECtHR, Madah and others v. Bulgaria, app. no. 45237/08, 10 May 2012.
ECtHR, Berisha v. Switzerland, app. no. 948/12, 13 July 2013 (Final 20/1/2014).
ECtHR, I.A.A. and Others v. United Kingdom, app. no. 25960/13, 31 March 2016.
ECtHR, El Ghatet v. Switzerland, app. no. 56971/10, 8 February 2017.
ECtHR, Hamesevic v. Denmark, app. no. 25748/15, 8 June 2017.
ECtHR, Alam v. Denmark, app. no. 33809/15, 29 June 2017.
ECtHR, Ndidi v UK, app. no. 41215/14, 14 September 2017, Final 29 January 2018.
ECtHR, Guliyev and Sheina v Russia, app. no. 29790/14, 17 April 2018.
ECtHR, I.M v. Switzerland, app. no. 23887/18, 9 April 2019.
ECtHR, Loukili v. The Netherlands, app. no. 57766/19, 11 April 2023.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
How to Cite
