Blog Post by Havva Yesil, PhD researcher, Dublin City University
The recent judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus has prompted significant enquiries on the validity of the European Union’s externalisation policy and its effects on the human rights of refugees. The Court determined that Cyprus breached many articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by intercepting a vessel transporting Syrian asylum seekers and repatriating them to Lebanon without adjudicating their claims. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities EU member states hold under international law to protect the rights of asylum seekers when dealing with intricate migration issues.
This blog post will examine the broader effects of this verdict concerning the EU’s ongoing externalisation of migration control. I will specifically address how these practices, illustrated by agreements with states such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Libya, persist in undermining the fundamental rights of refugees. The M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus judgement exemplifies the EU’s inability to uphold its human rights commitments, including the principle of non-refoulement, as it attempts to transfer the duty for refugee protection to non-EU countries.
The Case of M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus
The case of M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus includes the two Syrian nationals, M.A. and Z.R., who escaped their homeland in 2016 because of the prolonged civil conflict and the devastation of their homes. In search of asylum, they reached Lebanon, where they resided in a refugee camp for many years. The camp circumstances were severe, with minimal access to healthcare, employment, or fundamental rights. Following the deterioration of the situation in Lebanon, especially after the Beirut explosion in 2020, M.A. and Z.R. decided to seek asylum in Cyprus. Upon their arrival in Cypriot waters, authorities detained their vessel and denied them permission to disembark. Although M.A. and Z.R. had indicated their intention to seek asylum, the Cypriot government classified them as economic migrants, denying them the opportunity to present their claims.
The ECtHR determined that Cyprus was culpable for breaching multiple fundamental stipulations of the ECHR. The Court concluded that Cyprus had breached Article 3, which forbids cruel or degrading treatment. The Cypriot authorities neglected to evaluate the risks faced by M.A. and Z.R. upon their return to Lebanon, failing to process their asylum claims and to analyse the threats arising from the absence of adequate asylum processes in Lebanon. The Court determined that Lebanon was not a secure destination, as refugees frequently encountered inadequate living conditions and the risk of deportation to Syria.
Moreover, the Court determined that Cyprus breached Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, which forbids the collective expulsion of foreigners. M.A. and Z.R. were expelled collectively without an individual evaluation of their circumstances. The acts of the Cypriot authorities amounted to collective expulsion, a procedure that precludes individuals from having their specific situations evaluated prior to deportation.
The Court ultimately determined that Cyprus violated Article 13, which ensures the right to an effective remedy. M.A. and Z.R. were denied legal recourse when Cypriot officials refused to allow them to challenge their expulsion or seek refuge. The infringement was exacerbated by the denial of the applicants’ access to a full legal assessment, rendering them vulnerable to refoulement, being returned to a nation where their safety was not assured.
The Court’s decision strongly criticises the Cypriot authorities’ treatment of asylum seekers. By neglecting to evaluate the specific circumstances of M.A. and Z.R. and depending on a bilateral agreement with Lebanon to rationalise their actions, Cyprus violated its international duties under the ECHR. This case underscores the larger concern of pushbacks and collective expulsions, which have become increasingly prevalent in the context of the EU’s externalisation of migration controls.
EU’s Externalisation Policies and Human Rights Violations
The M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus ruling illuminates the EU’s overarching strategy of delegating migration management to third nations, a tactic that has become fundamental to its migration policy. In recent years, the EU has reached many contentious agreements with countries such Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, and Turkey, intending to decrease the influx of migrants and refugees into Europe by delegating the responsibility of hosting them to these states. Nevertheless, these agreements face growing criticism for compromising essential human rights and subjecting refugees to dangerous and inadequate conditions.
The European Union’s agreement with Lebanon, valued at €1 billion over three years, aims to bolster the Lebanese economy and prevent irregular migration to Europe by confining Syrian refugees within Lebanon’s territory. While this cash is presented as crucial humanitarian assistance, critics contend that its actual purpose is to transfer the burden of refugees onto Lebanon, where the situation for displaced individuals is worsening. Lebanon has been criticised for its handling of Syrian refugees, which includes harassment, threats of deportation, and coerced repatriation to Syria, where refugees may encounter torture or conscription.
Similarly, the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding, agreed in 2023, provides Tunisia with around €1 billion in financial assistance in return for curbing migrant flows to Europe. The Tunisian government’s persecution of migrants, especially sub-Saharan Africans, has raised human rights concerns, with allegations of forced deportations to the borders of Algeria and Libya. The aforementioned methods, alongside brutal state persecution, illustrate the harmful effects of EU migration agreements, as third countries are encouraged to employ force to reduce migration, frequently at the expense of breaching international safeguards.
Libya, a longstanding collaborator in the EU’s migration management initiatives, continues to receive assistance for its coast guard and border operations. Human rights organisations have consistently condemned the treatment of migrants who are apprehended and sent to Libya, where they are frequently confined in detention centres infamous for human rights violations, including forced labour and exploitation. Notwithstanding these claims, the EU persists in allocating resources to Libya’s migration infrastructure, prompting significant concerns regarding its involvement in these violations.
The externalisation policies, represented by the EU-Turkey agreement, further demonstrate the EU’s dependence on informal deals with third countries to mitigate migration. Although these agreements may temporarily decrease migration numbers, they do so at the cost of refugees’ rights. The EU-Turkey Statement has faced criticism for contributing to the imprisonment of refugees in inadequate conditions in Turkey, where legal protections are deficient. Turkey’s participation in repatriating refugees to conflict zones mirrors the abuses observed in Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya.
In summary, although the EU aims to regulate migration through the externalisation of its borders, these policies frequently lead to significant human rights abuses. The M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus case underscores the repercussions of such policies, emphasising the EU’s inability to fulfil its legal responsibilities under international law. The EU should prioritise the establishment of secure, legal avenues for asylum seekers instead of expelling migrants, ensuring that human rights remain central to its migration strategy.
Broader Implications of the Judgment for EU Migration Policy
The ruling in M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus by the ECtHR emphasises the deficiencies of Cypriot authorities in managing asylum applications, and reveals the systemic problems associated with the EU’s externalisation agenda. The EU’s growing dependence on third countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, and Tunisia to regulate migratory flows highlights instances that sharply illustrate the potential incompatibility of these strategies with the core tenets of international human rights law.
The EU’s externalisation policy, although framed as a solution for the issues associated with irregular migration, frequently emphasises border control and the limitation of migration at the expense of human rights protection. The pushbacks in Cyprus exemplify a wider trend observed throughout Europe of states engaging in collective expulsions, violating the principle of non-refoulement, which forbids the return of refugees to regions where they may encounter persecution. The EU-Turkey agreement, however effective in decreasing the influx of arrivals to Europe, has confined thousands of refugees to unsafe conditions in Turkey, with restricted access to legal protection.
This case should push EU member states to reevaluate their migration management strategies. Although externalisation agreements may provide temporary alleviation by decreasing migrant numbers, they frequently result in refugees enduring risky and awful conditions. The ECHR and international refugee law mandate EU countries to evaluate asylum seekers’ claims on an individual basis and to guarantee that they are not exposed to inhumane treatment or repatriation to dangerous conditions. Externalisation, in its current implementation, frequently circumvents these safeguards, transferring the burden to nations with diminished resources and inadequate legal rights for refugees.
The judgement underlines the necessity for enhanced accountability and openness in the implementation of migration policies by EU member states and organisations. The informal character of most agreements, including the EU-Turkey Statement, raised apprehensions regarding the absence of democratic control and judicial scrutiny. The ECtHR verdict underscores that member states must not undermine their international legal duties for the sake of political and security considerations. The EU must reconcile border security with the protection of refugee rights. This ruling should trigger a reassessment of current accords and motivate the EU to prioritise humane, sustainable migration strategies, including the establishment of legitimate migratory channels and a more equitable distribution of refugee protection responsibilities among member states. The EU may fulfil its international legal duties and effectively manage the intricate issue of migration only by prioritising human rights in its policies.
Conclusion
The M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus ruling serves as an essential reminder of the legal responsibilities that EU member states hold under both European and international law to safeguard the rights of asylum seekers. The European Union’s reliance on externalisation policies, which involve outsourcing migration control to third countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, and Tunisia, increases the possibility of infringing upon the fundamental rights of refugees. This ruling underscores the perils of prioritising migratory control over human dignity, demonstrating how such policies can result in pushbacks, mass expulsions, and severe punishment, all of which are forbidden by international law.
The European Union’s current approach, particularly through informal agreements and financial incentives to non-EU countries, has routinely led to significant human rights violations. Although these agreements may temporarily reduce the number of migrants reaching European borders, they do so at the expense of the most vulnerable populations, forcing refugees into precarious and unsafe conditions in countries with insufficient asylum protections and inadequate resources. This strategy underscores the EU’s failure to uphold its human rights commitments, as these policies are fundamentally incompatible with its legal obligations under international law. The M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus case highlights that the EU cannot shift its responsibilities onto other states without compromising the rights and dignity of those it is duty-bound to protect.
The EU must transition from a strategy focused exclusively on externalisation and control to an approach that prioritises human rights and responsibility-sharing in light of escalating migration challenges. By establishing secure and lawful avenues for asylum seekers and ensuring equitable contributions from all member states towards refugee protection, the EU can fulfil its commitments while addressing the difficulties of migration in a more humane and sustainable manner. The Cyprus verdict must act as a turning point, prompting the EU to reevaluate and amend its migration policy to avert more human rights infringements and to guarantee that its dedication to safeguarding refugees transcends mere rhetoric.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.