European governments have endorsed a new political interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights in migration cases, a move that could shape legal and policy debates over deportations, rejected asylum claims, border controls and the use of third-country facilities for people without permission to remain.
The declaration was adopted on Friday at the 135th Session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Chișinău, Moldova, where representatives of the organization’s 46 member states agreed language intended to clarify how the convention should be applied in contemporary migration disputes. The text is non-binding and does not formally amend the convention, but it is expected to be cited by governments seeking greater judicial latitude in migration and removal cases.
The Council of Europe, which is separate from the European Union and oversees the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, framed the declaration as an effort to reconcile two pressures: the obligation of states to uphold convention rights and the demand from governments to respond more effectively to irregular migration, mass arrivals, border pressure and cases involving foreign nationals convicted of serious offences.
At the center of the declaration is the assertion that states have the sovereign right to decide who may enter and remain on their territory, while exercising that authority in accordance with the convention and wider international law. The declaration also states that protecting borders is both an obligation and a necessity, provided that border measures comply with human rights guarantees, including the principle that people must not be returned to places where they face prohibited treatment.
The text gives political support to cooperation with third countries in migration management, including the controversial concept of “return hubs.” Such hubs would allow European states to send certain rejected asylum seekers or other migrants to facilities outside the removing state, provided the third country respects applicable human rights standards. The idea has gained prominence as several European governments look for alternatives to domestic removal systems that they say are slow, contested and vulnerable to repeated legal challenges.
Italy’s arrangement with Albania has already made the model a central reference point in European migration debate. Other governments have examined comparable arrangements, while critics argue that outsourcing elements of asylum or removal policy risks weakening accountability and exposing vulnerable people to inadequate safeguards beyond the territory of the state that initiated the removal.
The declaration pays particular attention to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That provision has long been one of the most important legal barriers to deportation where an individual argues that removal would expose them to severe harm, lack of medical treatment or detention conditions below human rights standards.
The declaration reaffirms that the prohibition of torture is absolute, but it also refers to assessing the severity threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment in light of the circumstances of each case. Supporters regard that language as a realistic recognition that courts must consider factual context when evaluating removal risks. Critics say the formulation could encourage governments to argue for a narrower application of Article 3 in migration cases, especially where public order or national security concerns are invoked.
Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life, is another major focus. In deportation litigation, foreign nationals have often invoked Article 8 to argue that removal would unlawfully disrupt family relationships, long-term residence, community ties or the welfare of children. The declaration states that expulsion may be compatible with the convention when it pursues a legitimate aim, including national security or public safety, and when national authorities have properly balanced the competing interests.
The text also emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity, under which national authorities and domestic courts carry the primary responsibility for applying the convention, with the European Court of Human Rights acting as a supervisory body. That emphasis is significant because governments have repeatedly argued that domestic courts are better placed to weigh local security, immigration and public-policy considerations than an international court examining a case from Strasbourg.
For governments that have pressed for change, the declaration offers a common political position without requiring the more difficult process of treaty amendment. It signals that ministers want the convention system to remain intact but interpreted with greater sensitivity to migration pressures and public confidence. Officials have argued that the declaration can help avoid a wider backlash against the human rights framework by showing that the system can adapt to modern challenges.
European Union officials welcomed the adoption as consistent with a broader effort to build a firmer and more coordinated migration policy. The European Commission has been advancing its own migration agenda, including implementation of the EU migration and asylum pact and work on returns. Although the Council of Europe declaration is not an EU instrument, it could influence the political environment in which EU and national migration measures are designed and defended in court.
The declaration follows months of pressure from a group of European governments that argued Strasbourg case law had placed excessive limits on deportations, particularly in cases involving foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes. In 2025, leaders from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland publicly urged a reconsideration of how the convention applies to such cases, saying the system needed to better reflect public safety and states’ responsibility to control migration.
Those concerns have become more politically salient as migration remains one of Europe’s most contested issues. Several governments have tightened asylum rules, expanded border controls, increased return efforts and sought agreements with countries of origin and transit. Right-wing and nationalist parties have used migration litigation as evidence that courts and international obligations prevent elected governments from acting, while mainstream governments have sought to show they can reduce irregular arrivals without withdrawing from the convention system.
The United Kingdom, which remains a member of the Council of Europe despite leaving the EU, is among the countries likely to see the declaration enter domestic political debate. Successive British governments have faced legal obstacles in efforts to remove asylum seekers or foreign offenders, and arguments over the European Convention on Human Rights have become a central dividing line in migration policy. The declaration gives governments that want to remain within the convention a basis to argue that reform is possible from inside the system.
Human rights organizations reacted with alarm, saying the declaration risks sending a political signal to courts that migrant protections should be weakened. They argue that the convention’s protections are universal and should not depend on a person’s immigration status, criminal record or political unpopularity. Critics also warn that third-country return hubs may make it harder to monitor conditions, access lawyers, challenge removal decisions or ensure that people are not indirectly sent onward to unsafe countries.
Legal experts are divided over the declaration’s practical effect. Because the text is political rather than legally binding, it cannot by itself alter the convention or compel the European Court of Human Rights to decide cases differently. The court retains its judicial independence and its authority to interpret and apply the convention. However, high-level declarations by member states can still form part of the broader institutional dialogue around the convention system and may be cited in litigation or policy arguments.
The Council of Europe has used similar declarations in the past to address the functioning of the Strasbourg system, including questions of subsidiarity, the margin of appreciation and the relationship between national courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The new declaration applies that reform tradition to migration, a field where governments say legal doctrine has not kept pace with operational pressure at borders and in return systems.
Supporters of the declaration say it preserves the convention while giving states clearer tools to act. They argue that public support for human rights protections can erode if voters believe courts make it impossible to remove people who have no lawful basis to stay or who pose a public-safety risk. In that view, a politically agreed interpretation can reinforce, rather than weaken, the convention by showing that it can accommodate both individual rights and democratic responsibility for migration control.
Opponents see the same text as a warning sign. They argue that the convention was designed to protect individuals precisely when governments face political pressure to limit rights. For them, language about sovereignty, public confidence and migration management risks creating a hierarchy of rights in which migrants, asylum seekers and foreign nationals convicted of crimes receive reduced protection compared with citizens and settled residents.
The central legal tension is unlikely to be resolved quickly. Domestic courts will continue to assess individual deportation and asylum cases under national law, EU law where applicable, refugee obligations and the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights will remain the final interpreter of the convention for member states, and it will have to decide how much weight, if any, to give the new political declaration when future cases reach Strasbourg.
For now, the Chișinău declaration marks a significant political moment in Europe’s migration debate. It does not dismantle the human rights framework, but it shows that all Council of Europe governments were prepared to endorse language giving greater prominence to sovereignty, border control, public safety and third-country cooperation. Whether that language becomes a meaningful legal shift will depend on how national authorities use it, how domestic courts respond, and how the Strasbourg court treats the declaration in future migration cases.
Leave a Reply