The Repressive Function of Migration Law and the Fairness and Effectiveness of the European Union’s Return Policy

Markiewicz-Stanny, Joanna

Abstract

The research objective of this paper is to determine the impact that the repressive nature of the European Commission’s amendments to Directive 2008/115 will likely have on the two basic values of the return policy, that is, its fairness and effectiveness. The basic thesis of this study is that the direction of the directive’s recast, assuming – inter alia – an extension of the list of circumstances for applying the entry ban and detention, is contrary to the declared fairness of the migration policy towards third-country nationals. At the same time, the effectiveness of the planned changes is already questionable at the stage of draft legislation. These considerations are based on a juxtaposition of the proposed changes with currently binding legislation, the Commission’s soft law and the case law of the CJEU. The final effect of these analyses is the finding that the solutions proposed by the Commission will lead to an inevitable increase in the use of coercive measures against irregular immigrants in a way that stands in fundamental contradiction to the declared fairness and proportionality of EU actions. In this context, the effectiveness of the return policy should not be identified with a percentage of returns, but rather with the recognised necessity of overall and perfect control over irregular migrants. At the same time, the Recast Return Directive will contribute to the development of an already existing tendency to treat migration law as an instrument of security and public order, and to use administrative law measures so that they function in a manner equivalent to that of a criminal sanction.

Keywords

entry ban (1)detention (1)proportionality (3)human rights (7)

References

Basilien-Gainche M.-L., Detention Under Control: A Deceptive Upheaval?, “EU Law Analysis” 9.06.2014. [Google Scholar]
Bogucka I., Funkcje prawa. Analiza pojęcia, Zakamycze 2000. [Google Scholar]
Bosworth M., Border Criminologies: Assessing the Changing Architecture of Crime and Punishment, Global Detention Project, Working Paper No. 10, February 2016. [Google Scholar]
Bosworth M., Thurnbull S., Immigration, Detention and the Expansion of Penal Power in the United Kingdom, [in:] Reiter K., Koenig A., Extreme Punishment: Comparative Studies in Detention, Incarceration, and Solitary Confinement, London 2015. [Google Scholar]
Coffey G.J., Kaplan I., Sampson R.C., Tucci M., The Meaning and Mental Health Consequences of Long-Term Immigration Detention for People Seeking Asylum, “Social Science & Medicine” 2010, 70(12). [Google Scholar]
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, The Recast Return Directive and Its Fundamental Rights Implications: Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 10.01.2019, Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union 2019. [Google Scholar]
European Council on Refugees and Exiles, ECRE Comments on the Commission Proposal for a Recast Return Directive COM(2018) 634, November 2018. [Google Scholar]
Fischer N., The Detention of Foreigners in France: Between Discretionary Control and the Rule of Law, “European Journal of Criminology” 2013, 6. [Google Scholar]
Jesuit Refugee Service, Europe: Becoming Vulnerable in Detention, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Cornelisse G., Immigration Detention and Human Rights: Rethinking Territorial Sovereignty, Leiden–Boston 2010. [Google Scholar]
Długosz J., The Principle of Proportionality in European Union Law as a Prerequisite for Penalization, “Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review” 2017. [Google Scholar]
Dušková Š., Migration Control and Detention of Migrants and Asylum Seekers: Motivations, Rationale and Challenges, “Groningen Journal of International Law” 2017, 5(1). [Google Scholar]
Global Detention Project, Uncounted: The Detention of Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Europe, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Hernández C.C.G., Immigration Detention as Punishment, “UCLA Law Review” 2014, 61. [Google Scholar]
Kushminder K., Interrogating the Relationship Between Remigration and Sustainable Return, “International Migration” 2017, 55(6). [Google Scholar]
Lewicki M., Funkcje sankcji prawnych w prawie administracyjnym zagadnienia wybrane, Acta “Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Iuridica” 2009, 69. [Google Scholar]
Majcher I., de Senarclens C., Discipline and Punish? Analysis of the Purposes of Immigration Detention in Europe, “AmeriQuests” 2014, 11(2). [Google Scholar]
Majcher I., Crimmigration in the European Union Through the Lens of Immigration Detention, Global Detention Project, Working Paper No. 6, September 2013. [Google Scholar]
Michalska M., Proportionality as the Tool for Adjudicating Conflicts of Fundamental Rights: Criticism and Retort, “Krytyka Prawa” 2019, 11(2). [Google Scholar]
Miller T., Citizenship & Severity: Recent Immigration Reforms and the New Penology, “Georgetown Immigration Law Journal” 2003, 17. [Google Scholar]
Mitsilegas V., The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe: Challenges for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, Springer 2014. [Google Scholar]
Nowak P., Sankcja karna w prawie administracyjnym oraz charakter prawny administracyjnych kar pieniężnych, “Internetowy Przegląd Prawniczy TBSP UJ” 2012, 3(10). [Google Scholar]
OHCHR, Expert Meeting on Protecting the Human Rights of Migrants in the Context of Return: Background Paper, 6.03.2018. [Google Scholar]
Robjant K., Hassan R., Katona C., Mental Health Implications of Detaining Asylum Seekers: Systematic Review, “British Journal of Psychiatry” 2009, 194. [Google Scholar]
Ruben R., Van Houte M., Davids T., What Determines the Embeddedness of Forced-Return Migrants: Rethinking the Role of Pre- and Post-Return Assistance, “International Migration Review” 2009, 43(4). [Google Scholar]
Sauter W., Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act?, “Cambridge Yearbook of European Studies” 2013, 15. [Google Scholar]
Sexton L., Penal Subjectivities: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Penal Consciousness, “Punishment & Society” 2015, 17(1). [Google Scholar]
Schwarz-Nielsen K. H., Elklitt A., An Evaluation of the Mental Status of Rejected Asylum Seekers in Two Danish Asylum Centers, “Torture” 2009, 19. [Google Scholar]
Szumiło-Kulczycka D., Prawo administracyjno-karne, Zakamycze 2004. [Google Scholar]
Szumiło-Kulczycka D., Czarnecki P., Balcer P., Leszczyńska A., Analiza obrazu normatywnego deliktów administracyjnych, Warszawa 2016. [Google Scholar]
UNHCR, Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012. [Google Scholar]
UNHCR, Beyond Detention: A Global Strategy to Support Governments to End the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Refugees 2014–2019, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Van der Woude M., Van der Leun J., Crimmigration Checks in the Internal Border Areas of the EU: Finding the Discretion That Matters, “European Journal of Criminology” 2017, 14(1). [Google Scholar]
The Proposed Return Directive (Recast). Substitute Impact Assessment Study, European Research Parliament Research Service, February 2019. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Markiewicz-Stanny, Joanna (2020). The Repressive Function of Migration Law and the Fairness and Effectiveness of the European Union’s Return Policy. (2020). The Repressive Function of Migration Law and the Fairness and Effectiveness of the European Union’s Return Policy. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 12(4), 124-141. https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.413 (Original work published 12/2020AD)

MLA style

Markiewicz-Stanny, Joanna. “The Repressive Function Of Migration Law And The Fairness And Effectiveness Of The European Union’S Return Policy”. 12/2020AD. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 12, no. 4, 2020, pp. 124-141.

Chicago style

Markiewicz-Stanny, Joanna. “The Repressive Function Of Migration Law And The Fairness And Effectiveness Of The European Union’S Return Policy”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem, 12, no. 4 (2020): 124-141. doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.413.

Copyright info

CC-BY

[1] Basilien-Gainche M.-L., Detention Under Control: A Deceptive Upheaval?, “EU Law Analysis” 9.06.2014. [Google Scholar]

[2] Bogucka I., Funkcje prawa. Analiza pojęcia, Zakamycze 2000. [Google Scholar]

[3] Bosworth M., Border Criminologies: Assessing the Changing Architecture of Crime and Punishment, Global Detention Project, Working Paper No. 10, February 2016. [Google Scholar]

[4] Bosworth M., Thurnbull S., Immigration, Detention and the Expansion of Penal Power in the United Kingdom, [in:] Reiter K., Koenig A., Extreme Punishment: Comparative Studies in Detention, Incarceration, and Solitary Confinement, London 2015. [Google Scholar]

[5] Coffey G.J., Kaplan I., Sampson R.C., Tucci M., The Meaning and Mental Health Consequences of Long-Term Immigration Detention for People Seeking Asylum, “Social Science & Medicine” 2010, 70(12). [Google Scholar]

[6] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, The Recast Return Directive and Its Fundamental Rights Implications: Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 10.01.2019, Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union 2019. [Google Scholar]

[7] European Council on Refugees and Exiles, ECRE Comments on the Commission Proposal for a Recast Return Directive COM(2018) 634, November 2018. [Google Scholar]

[8] Fischer N., The Detention of Foreigners in France: Between Discretionary Control and the Rule of Law, “European Journal of Criminology” 2013, 6. [Google Scholar]

[9] Jesuit Refugee Service, Europe: Becoming Vulnerable in Detention, 2011. [Google Scholar]

[10] Cornelisse G., Immigration Detention and Human Rights: Rethinking Territorial Sovereignty, Leiden–Boston 2010. [Google Scholar]

[11] Długosz J., The Principle of Proportionality in European Union Law as a Prerequisite for Penalization, “Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review” 2017. [Google Scholar]

[12] Dušková Š., Migration Control and Detention of Migrants and Asylum Seekers: Motivations, Rationale and Challenges, “Groningen Journal of International Law” 2017, 5(1). [Google Scholar]

[13] Global Detention Project, Uncounted: The Detention of Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Europe, 2015. [Google Scholar]

[14] Hernández C.C.G., Immigration Detention as Punishment, “UCLA Law Review” 2014, 61. [Google Scholar]

[15] Kushminder K., Interrogating the Relationship Between Remigration and Sustainable Return, “International Migration” 2017, 55(6). [Google Scholar]

[16] Lewicki M., Funkcje sankcji prawnych w prawie administracyjnym zagadnienia wybrane, Acta “Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Iuridica” 2009, 69. [Google Scholar]

[17] Majcher I., de Senarclens C., Discipline and Punish? Analysis of the Purposes of Immigration Detention in Europe, “AmeriQuests” 2014, 11(2). [Google Scholar]

[18] Majcher I., Crimmigration in the European Union Through the Lens of Immigration Detention, Global Detention Project, Working Paper No. 6, September 2013. [Google Scholar]

[19] Michalska M., Proportionality as the Tool for Adjudicating Conflicts of Fundamental Rights: Criticism and Retort, “Krytyka Prawa” 2019, 11(2). [Google Scholar]

[20] Miller T., Citizenship & Severity: Recent Immigration Reforms and the New Penology, “Georgetown Immigration Law Journal” 2003, 17. [Google Scholar]

[21] Mitsilegas V., The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe: Challenges for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, Springer 2014. [Google Scholar]

[22] Nowak P., Sankcja karna w prawie administracyjnym oraz charakter prawny administracyjnych kar pieniężnych, “Internetowy Przegląd Prawniczy TBSP UJ” 2012, 3(10). [Google Scholar]

[23] OHCHR, Expert Meeting on Protecting the Human Rights of Migrants in the Context of Return: Background Paper, 6.03.2018. [Google Scholar]

[24] Robjant K., Hassan R., Katona C., Mental Health Implications of Detaining Asylum Seekers: Systematic Review, “British Journal of Psychiatry” 2009, 194. [Google Scholar]

[25] Ruben R., Van Houte M., Davids T., What Determines the Embeddedness of Forced-Return Migrants: Rethinking the Role of Pre- and Post-Return Assistance, “International Migration Review” 2009, 43(4). [Google Scholar]

[26] Sauter W., Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act?, “Cambridge Yearbook of European Studies” 2013, 15. [Google Scholar]

[27] Sexton L., Penal Subjectivities: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Penal Consciousness, “Punishment & Society” 2015, 17(1). [Google Scholar]

[28] Schwarz-Nielsen K. H., Elklitt A., An Evaluation of the Mental Status of Rejected Asylum Seekers in Two Danish Asylum Centers, “Torture” 2009, 19. [Google Scholar]

[29] Szumiło-Kulczycka D., Prawo administracyjno-karne, Zakamycze 2004. [Google Scholar]

[30] Szumiło-Kulczycka D., Czarnecki P., Balcer P., Leszczyńska A., Analiza obrazu normatywnego deliktów administracyjnych, Warszawa 2016. [Google Scholar]

[31] UNHCR, Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012. [Google Scholar]

[32] UNHCR, Beyond Detention: A Global Strategy to Support Governments to End the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Refugees 2014–2019, 2014. [Google Scholar]

[33] Van der Woude M., Van der Leun J., Crimmigration Checks in the Internal Border Areas of the EU: Finding the Discretion That Matters, “European Journal of Criminology” 2017, 14(1). [Google Scholar]

[34] The Proposed Return Directive (Recast). Substitute Impact Assessment Study, European Research Parliament Research Service, February 2019. [Google Scholar]

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem