Determining the Extent of Procedural Safeguards in Expulsion Proceedings – A Study of the Scope and Compatibility of the Guarantees Set Out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR
(2021) JURM02 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- It is the sovereign prerogative of the state to regulate the presence of aliens within its territory. This right, however, is not without limits. Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights ensures procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens. These safeguards must be considered in expulsion proceedings by those Member States having ratified the protocol.
Up until recently, little guidance on how to interpret the article was to be sought in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, in October of 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court delivered its first judgment in which it found a violation of the article. The case, Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania, has been described as... (More) - It is the sovereign prerogative of the state to regulate the presence of aliens within its territory. This right, however, is not without limits. Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights ensures procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens. These safeguards must be considered in expulsion proceedings by those Member States having ratified the protocol.
Up until recently, little guidance on how to interpret the article was to be sought in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, in October of 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court delivered its first judgment in which it found a violation of the article. The case, Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania, has been described as groundbreaking and is the first case where the court deals with the provision substantively. This thesis aims to better understand the guarantees set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, focusing on how these procedural rights relate to the idea of state sovereignty and the procedural safety of the individual. Moreover, the current interpretation of the article is analyzed in relation to how it fits into the broader Convention system. As a basis for the examination, critical legal positivism is used.
To summarize the findings of the thesis, the court establishes a new method of legal problem solving in Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania that should be followed when determining whether the procedural safeguards of the article have been violated or not. In the end, a fair balance between state sovereignty and individual protection of the alien subject to expulsion is required. However, different views on what constitutes a fair balance make the issue a very complex one. Using critical legal positivism, one is also to remember that the majority’s judgment in the case does not reflect any “truth” when it comes to how the provision is to be understood. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Det är statens suveräna rätt att reglera utlänningars närvaro inom dess territorium. Denna rätt är däremot inte utan begränsningar. Artikel 1 i protokoll nr. 7 till Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna säkerställer rättssäkerhetsgarantier i samband med utvisningen av utlänningar. Dessa rättssäkerhetsgarantier måste tillgodoses vid utvisningsförfarandet i de medlemsstater som har ratificerat protokollet.
Fram till nyligen fanns det inte mycket vägledning att söka i Europeiska
domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheternas rättspraxis avseende tolkning av artikeln. I oktober 2020 avkunnade däremot domstolens stora avdelning sin första dom där man fann att artikeln hade överträtts. Fallet, Muhammad och Muhammad v.... (More) - Det är statens suveräna rätt att reglera utlänningars närvaro inom dess territorium. Denna rätt är däremot inte utan begränsningar. Artikel 1 i protokoll nr. 7 till Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna säkerställer rättssäkerhetsgarantier i samband med utvisningen av utlänningar. Dessa rättssäkerhetsgarantier måste tillgodoses vid utvisningsförfarandet i de medlemsstater som har ratificerat protokollet.
Fram till nyligen fanns det inte mycket vägledning att söka i Europeiska
domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheternas rättspraxis avseende tolkning av artikeln. I oktober 2020 avkunnade däremot domstolens stora avdelning sin första dom där man fann att artikeln hade överträtts. Fallet, Muhammad och Muhammad v. Rumänien, har beskrivits som banbrytande då det utgör det första fall där domstolen handskas med bestämmelsen i betydande
omfattning. Denna uppsats syftar till att bättre förstå de garantier som anges i artikel 1 i protokoll nr. 7 till konventionen, med fokus satt på hur garantierna relaterar till idén om statssuveränitet samt individens rättssäkerhet. Därutöver analyseras den nuvarande tolkningen av bestämmelsen i förhållande till hur den platsar i konventionssystemet som helhet. Som underlag för granskningen används kritisk rättspositivism.
För att sammanfatta resultatet av uppsatsen så etablerar domstolen en ny metod för juridisk problemlösning i Muhammad och Muhammad v. Rumänien
som ska användas för att avgöra om rättssäkerhetsgarantierna i artikeln har överträtts eller ej. I slutändan krävs det att en rättvis balans uppnås mellan statssuveräniteten och utlänningens individuella skydd. Olika synsätt på vad som utgör en rättvis balans gör emellertid frågan mycket komplex. Med kritisk rättspositivism som grund måste man även komma ihåg att majoritetens domskäl inte återspeglar någon ”sanning” när det kommer till hur bestämmelsen ska förstås. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9046075
- author
- Karlsson, Anna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Public international law, aliens, expulsion, procedural protection, ECHR, European Convention on Human Rights, procedural safeguards, Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania, national security, public order, due process, sovereignty, critical legal positivism, Tuori, the margin of appreciation, ECtHR, European Court of Human Rights
- language
- English
- id
- 9046075
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-17 11:47:08
- date last changed
- 2021-06-17 11:47:08
@misc{9046075,
abstract = {{It is the sovereign prerogative of the state to regulate the presence of aliens within its territory. This right, however, is not without limits. Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights ensures procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens. These safeguards must be considered in expulsion proceedings by those Member States having ratified the protocol.
Up until recently, little guidance on how to interpret the article was to be sought in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, in October of 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court delivered its first judgment in which it found a violation of the article. The case, Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania, has been described as groundbreaking and is the first case where the court deals with the provision substantively. This thesis aims to better understand the guarantees set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, focusing on how these procedural rights relate to the idea of state sovereignty and the procedural safety of the individual. Moreover, the current interpretation of the article is analyzed in relation to how it fits into the broader Convention system. As a basis for the examination, critical legal positivism is used.
To summarize the findings of the thesis, the court establishes a new method of legal problem solving in Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania that should be followed when determining whether the procedural safeguards of the article have been violated or not. In the end, a fair balance between state sovereignty and individual protection of the alien subject to expulsion is required. However, different views on what constitutes a fair balance make the issue a very complex one. Using critical legal positivism, one is also to remember that the majority’s judgment in the case does not reflect any “truth” when it comes to how the provision is to be understood.}},
author = {{Karlsson, Anna}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Determining the Extent of Procedural Safeguards in Expulsion Proceedings – A Study of the Scope and Compatibility of the Guarantees Set Out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR}},
year = {{2021}},
}