Reaktioner på Chișinău Erklæringen

 SÅ KOM CHISINAU ERKLÆRINGEN

https://rm.coe.int/pdf/09125948802bc2cc

Council of Europe foreign ministers adopt political declaration on the ECHR and migration

Jurisdiction of the Court / Interpretation (Article 32)

12. The Court authoritatively interprets the Convention in accordance with relevant norms and principles of public international law, and, in particular, in the light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Convention is interpreted as a living instrument, giving appropriate consideration to present- day conditions, which ensures its applicability in response to novel challenges.

Det understreges at forbuddet mod tortur Art. 3 i EMRK er absolut:

Article 3

22. It must be emphasised that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Convention is absolute. It permits no derogation, contains no exceptions, and allows for no legitimate interference.

Article 8

31. Article 8 allows public authorities to expel a foreign national from their territory even though such a measure may interfere with their right to respect for private and family life, so long as such interference is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Legitimate aims that may justify interference are national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The right balance must be struck between individual rights and interests and the weighty public interests of defending freedom and security in the societies of the States Parties.

t.o.

t.o. er den europæiske menneskerettighedsdomstol ikke en stor hindring for udvisninger af kriminelle udlændingen. Faktisk taber Danmark meget få sager ved EMD. I perioden 2019-2024 er 6721 udlændinge blevet udvist ved dom. Og medlemslandene i Europarådets 46 stater har en bred margin for at udvise kriminelle.

Eva Sevrin forklarer her bl.a. hvor få sager det drejer sig om, hvor EMD hindrer udvisninger

• 8.5.26 Podcast on Migration and the ECtHR med Eva Sevrin (universities of Ghent and Leuven) The European Court of Human Rights has come under growing political pressure, with some political leaders claiming that its case law on migration should be “rebalanced” because it protects “the wrong people”. Not everyone embraces that rhetoric, but it is no longer coming only from the political fringes. This May, the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe are expected to adopt a joint political declaration on migration and the European Convention on Human Rights. In this episode, I speak with Eva Sevrin, a researcher at Ghent University and the KU Leuven Center for Public Law who specializes in migration and human rights law. We focus on a simple question that often gets lost in the debate: what does the Court's case law actually say?

REAKTIONER ANALYSER kommer her

Shopping Lists and Steppingstones

On the Chișinău Declaration by Fikfak og Rask Madsen

As a result, as documents go, the Chișinǎu Declaration is a mixed bag: it contains a pick-and-mix of instructions to the Court on how it should reduce the current protections, relativize absolute provisions, and give states more leeway to do what they wish in various contexts. The document is also marred by repetitions, inconsistencies and contradictions. 

Open-Minded or Open-Ended? The Chișinău Declaration on the ECHR and Migration 15.5.26

"One might wonder whether the 27 states, and especially the 9, are truly satisfied with the Chișinău Declaration, given that it offers little to no criticism of the Court’s migration case law and makes no request for the Court to amend this body of case law.”

46 europæiske lande har fredag i Chisinau i Moldova vedtaget en politisk erklæring om migration.

Dansk pres har båret frugt: 46 lande vil gøre det lettere at udvise kriminelle udlændinge

Ritzau 15.5.26 

Læs i Linket ovenfor:

Unlike the Letter of 9, the Declaration does not note that the states ‘should have more room nationally to decide on when to expel criminal foreign nationals’.

Skrevet af Anne Albinus