Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin N.D. Ve N.T./İspanya Kararına Dair Bir Değerlendirme

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’ne Ek 4 Numaralı Protokol m. 4 “Yabancıların topluca sınırdışı edilmeleri yasaktır.” hükmünü içermektedir. Büyük Daire 20 Şubat 2020 tarihinde verdiği N.D. ve N.T./ İspanya kararında, tarihinde ilk defa düzensiz şekilde bir ülkenin kara sınırlarından ülkeye güç kullanarak giriş yapmaya yeltenen çok sayıda göçmenin sınır dışı edilmesinin Ek 4 Numaralı Protokol m. 4’e uygunluğuna dair bir değerlendirme yapmıştır. Bu çalışmada Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin N.D. ve N.T./İspanya kararı özetlenecek, analiz edilecek ve bu güncel karar ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin toplu sınır dışı yasağına ilişkin içtihadının ne ölçüde değiştiği ve Ek 4 Numaralı Protokol m. 4’ün kara sınırlarında yakalanan düzensiz göçmenlerin bireysel başvuruları incelenmeksizin doğrudan sınır dışı edilmesine izin verip vermediği tartışılacaktır. Ayrıca söz konusu kararın Türkiye için olası sonuçları da kısaca sonuç kısmında ele alınacaktır

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. V. SPAIN1

Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto (hereinafter Protocol No. 4) provides: “Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” In the case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain the Grand Chamber, for the first time, addressed the issue of the applicability of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the immediate and forcible return of aliens from a land border, following an attempt by a large number of migrants to cross that border in an unauthorised manner and en masse. This article focuses on the Grand Chamber’s decision in the case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain delivered on 13 February 2020. The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the N.D. and N.T. v. Spain judgment and explore the extent to which the N.D. and N.T. v. Spain judgment has changed the Court’s jurisprudence on collective expulsion. In doing so, the article also examines whether this judgment allows states to pursue hot expulsion or pushback at the land borders. The article also briefly discusses possible implications for this judgment for Turkey in the conclusion.

PDF

___

CARRERA, S., 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 2020/2, 2020, accessed on 26 July 2020.
COSTELLO C., The Human Rights of Migrants in European Law (OUP 2016).
D. Harris, M. O’Boyle, E. Bates and C. Buckley, Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd edn, OUP 2009).
European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 – Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens, Last updated 20 April 2020, accessed on 26 July 2020.
Den Heijer M., ‘Whose Rights and Which Rights? the Continuing Story of Non-refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2008) 10 (3) European Journal of Migration and Law 277.
DI FILIPPO M., Walking the (barbed) wire of the prohibition of collective expulsion: An assessment of the Strasbourg case law (2020) 15(2) Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 479.
GÖÇMEN, İ. Avrupa insan hakları sözleşmesi ışığında Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye göç hukuku. (Seçkin 2015).
HRUSCHKA, Constantin, Hot returns remain contrary to the ECHR: ND & NT before the ECHR, 28 Friday 2020 accessed on 26 July 2020.
LAUTERPACHT E. and BETHLEHEM D., ‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement’ in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge, CUP 2003) 78.
MORENO-LAX V., ‘Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy or the Strasbourg Court versus Extraterritorial Migration Control?’ (2012) 12(3) Human Rights Law Review 574.
MOYA, D., ‘Judgement ND and NT v Spain: on the legality of police “pushbacks” at the borders and, again, on the prohibition of collective expulsions’ Strasbourg Observers, 16 October 2017, < https://strasbourgobservers. com/2017/10/16/judgement-nd-and-nt-v-spain-on-the-legality-of-policepush-backs-at-the-borders-and-again-on-the-prohibition-of-collectiveexpulsions/> accessed 26 July 2020.
PAPAGEORGOPOULOS, Stavros N.D. and N.T. v. Spain: do hot returns require cold decision-making?, EDAL Website, 28 February 2020 accessed on 26 July 2020.
PICHL Maximilian and SCHMALZ Dana, “Unlawful” may not mean rightless.: The shocking ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment in case N.D. and N.T., VerfBlog, 14 February 2020, accessed on 26 July 2020.
RAINEY, B., WICKS E., & OVEY C. Jacobs, White and Ovey: the European convention on human rights (OUP 2014). SCHABAS William A., The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary (OUP 2015).
THYM, Daniel, A Restrictionist Revolution? A Counter-Intuitive Reading of the ECtHR’s N.D. & N.T.-Judgment on ‘Hot Expulsions’, EU Migration and Asylum Law and Policy Blog, 17 February 2020, < http://eumigrationlawblog. eu/a-restrictionist-revolution-a-counter-intuitive-reading-of-the-ecthrs-n-d-nt-judgment-on-hot-expulsions/> accessed on 26 July 2020.
VAN DIJK, P. Protection of integrated aliens against expulsion under the European Convention on Human Rights (1999) 1 EJML 293.
WISSING, Ruben, Push backs of “badly behaving” migrants at Spanish border are not collective expulsions (but might still be illegal refoulements), Strasbourg Observers, 25 February 2020, accessed on 26 July 2020.