19 November 2025
European Smart Borders:
The Entry-Exit System (EES) became operational across 29 Member States on the 12 October, marking the commencement of its gradual deployment which should lead to its full implementation by 10th April 2026. Its progressive entry into force is pursuant to Regulation 2025/1534, which allows for temporary derogation from Regulation 2017/2226 establishing the Entry/Exit System and Regulation 2016/399 on the Schengen Border Code. The Member States were obliged to submit their national roll-out plans to the Commission by the 24th September in light of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU-lisa)’s high level roll out plan adopted on the 25th August 2025 pursuant to Art 3 Regulation 2025/1534.
The EES will entail the collection of alphanumeric data and biometric data, including facial scans and fingerprints of third country nationals at the air, land and sea points of Member States ‘border control. This information is to be stored in the central EES, monitored by the EU-lisa. The Coordinated Supervision Committee composed of national supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor has been tasked with data protection oversight on the implementation of the EES at a national and European level.
Joint Letter on voluntary and forced return to Afghanistan:
On October 16th the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy sent a letter to Commissioner Magnus Brunner presenting their findings on the non-return of Afghan nationals and called for EU level action to ensure the voluntary and forced return to Afghanistan. The letter proposed an enhanced role for Frontex in the context of voluntary returns and suggested that the financial burden of returns could be relieved from Member States through a coordinated response. The absence of a formal return agreement between the EU and Afghanistan has led, in the view of the co-signing 18 Member States, accompanied by Finland and Norway, to the inability of returning Afghan nationals that pose a threat to public security. Following the letter, spokesperson for the EU Markus Lammert stated that the Commission had held “exploratory contacts” with the de facto authorities of Afghanistan, the Taliban, despite the EU’s non-recognition of those authorities.
Joint Letter on the European Pact on Migration and Asylum and implementation of the Solidarity Mechanism:
The Ministers for Asylum and Migration of Belgium and the Netherlands sent a joint letter to Commissioner Magnus Brunner expressing concern over high levels of secondary migration by asylum seekers onto their territories. They expressed that the implementation of the European Pact on Migration and Asylum and corresponding increased responsibility and solidarity amongst Member States was vital for the remedying of these issues. The letter called for the Commission to carefully design concrete action plans for each Member States and to monitor and ensure the appropriate distribution of responsibility. It emphasised that the Commission should indicate in its implementing decisions the Member States displaying systemic shortcomings in meeting their obligations under the Pact, so that solidarity pledges are not activated to those failing to undertake their responsibilities. In anticipation of the First Annual Report of the Commission on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the letter cautioned that the Solidarity Pool should be manageable and “in line with public expectations” so as to avoid undermining the instrument.
Meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Council:
The meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council was held on the 13-14th October. Of particular note for migration policy was support in the Council for the expansion of Frontex’s mandate, to increase their standing corps, preparing reserves for rapid deployment and enhancing its involvement in third countries in the context of returns. The Council also endorsed returns to Syria and collaboration with neighbouring country. The Dutch Government called for coordinated EU-level approach to the proposed action. As to the proposed Return Regulation, discourse centred the mutual recognition of return decisions.
Joint Statement on Migration from the European Political Community Summit:
The European Political Community Summit took place on the 2nd October 2025 in Copenhagen. Those in attendance, namely, the leaders of Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom in the presence of the European Commission and President of the European Parliament, reached consensus on a number of collective actions which must be taken to mitigate illegal migration. These conclusions included the need for a “whole-of route-approach” with a particular emphasis on innovation in migration law with reference to data capabilities in cross-border issues. Emphasis was also placed on efficient and effective returns and the cooperation with third countries to “alleviate domestic pressures”. Within the context of EU law, the Meijers Committee has recently produced a comment on the safe third country concept under the Asylum Procedure Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1348) and its impact on fundamental rights.
The International Protection Bill:
The proposed amendments to the “International Protection Bill” implementing the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact under Irish law has been criticised by a number of human rights organisations including the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, the Irish Refugee Council and Doras.
Notably, during pre-legislative scrutiny which took place on the 14th October 2025, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission raised concerns that the Bill goes beyond what is required by the EU Pact, prioritising expediency to the detriment of safeguards for vulnerable persons. Particularly, the IHREC indicated that the Bill’s guarantee of “legal counselling” rather than “legal advice”, raises concerns as to what exactly “legal counselling” includes and questions as to why the Bill removes the safeguard of legal advice prior to first instance interview, which the EU pact entitles it maintain. Moreover, the Bill’s designation of a Chief Inspector of Border Procedures who is appointed, funded and may be dismissed by the Minister of Justice is also, in the IHREC’s view, incompatible with the standard of “independence” required by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency.
Danish Policy on Student Visas:
In the wake of reports published by the Danish Ministry of Education and Science concerns have been raised that certain third country national students are exploiting study visas as a “backdoor into the Danish labour market”. Those third country national students highlighted in the reports are of Bangladeshi and Nepalese nationality. The Ministry of Immigration and Integration has responded with proposals for increasingly stringent measures imposed on third country national students. These measures include obligations to closely verify foreign educational documents, increase and adjustment in the payment of university fees, the restriction of family reunification for those benefitting from student visas and the reduction of the three year period for employment search post-studies to a period of one year.
End of Germany’s Fast-Track Naturalisation:
The German Parliament repealed the so-called “fast-track” citizenship process which allowed for naturalisation within three years on the 8th October. The accelerated process was made available to those who had legally and habitually resided in Germany for three years, who could demonstrate “outstanding” integration, who could prove sufficient and stable resources and the attainment of C1 level German. The abolishment of the fast-track process will not affect the other amendments introduced in 2024 including the lowering of the threshold for regular naturalisation from residency of eight years to five years.
UK-France Dangerous Journeys Treaty:
The first third-country national has been removed from the United Kingdom (“UK”) to France under the France-UK Dangerous Journeys Treaty which entered into force on 6th August. The Indian national reached the UK borders by a small boat from France and was removed from the territory on the 18 September 2025. The agreement results in the removal of irregular migrants who reach the UK via small vessels to France and the subsequent acceptance of an equivalent number of regular migrants into the UK from France. The agreement aims to deter unauthorised and unsafe migration to the UK, whilst offering increased lawful procedures of asylum as an alternative. The removals under the agreement have been subject to a number of legal challenges by the third-country nationals involved. The European Commission ‘s spokesperson Markus Lammert, stated that the agreement would be assessed for its compatability with “the spirit and the letter of EU law” and concerns mount from other Member States as to the effect of the agreement on the EU asylum system on a whole.
The Ocean Viking Incident:
An NGO-led vessel, the Ocean Viking, rescuing migrants on international waters off the coast of Libya was attacked on the 24 August. The NGO responsible for the vessel SOS Méditerranee released a statement in which they detailed the attack, stating “The attack caused bullet holes at head height, the destruction of multiple antennas, and four broken windows on the bridge, and several bullets struck and damaged the three RHIBS (fast rescue boats), along with other rescue equipment.” The NGO allege that the attack was carried out by the incumbents of a vessel attributed to the Libyan Coast Guard, a vessel granted to the Coast Guard by the Italian Government under the Union’s “Support to Integrated Border and Migration Management in Libya” framework. The Ocean Vilking issues a distress call after the attack, but received no response. SOS Méditterranee have subsequently initiated criminal legal proceedings to hold those responsible accountable. The attack provoked criticism and debate on the EU’s externalisation of migration/asylum processes.
CJEU case law:
C-313/25 PPU Adrar:
Adrar concerned a preliminary ruling referred by Rechtbank Den Haag pertaining firstly to the obligation of national courts to review compliance with the principle of non-refoulement and other interests (right to family life and best interests of the child) whilst reviewing the lawfulness of the detention of a TCN awaiting the enforcement of their return decision, after said return decision has become final. The second question referred related to the obligation of the national court reviewing the lawfulness of detention.
The Court found that in accordance with Art 15 (4) of the Directive, the legal considerations which determine the lawfulness of detention include the interests laid down in Art 5 of that Directive, namely the principle of non-refoulement. The competent national authority must therefore be empowered to consider the return decision in light of the principle of non-refoulement at all stages of procedure up until the enforcement of that decision, regardless of the finality of the return decision. The Court particularly emphasised the necessity of such assessment due to deprivation of liberty at hand which therefore entails a high level of judicial protection independent to appeal or complaint by the TCN concerned. As to the second question, the Court similarly held that the national competent authority must, even by its own motion, consider whether the fundamental rights, including the right to family life and the rights of the child, referenced in Art 5 of the Directive preclude the detention of the TCN and the subsequent removal of the TCN mandated by the final return decision.
C-758/24 + C-759/24 Alace and Canpelli
Joined Cases Alace and Canpelli stemmed from a preliminary ruling request arising from the rejection of two TCN applications for international protection following accelerated at-the-border procedures by the Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection Rome. The judgement of the CJEU has been highly anticipated and garnered considerable interest with 17 Member States submitting observations to the Court.
The applicants’ requests for international protection were denied as they came from a designated safe country of origin, the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The national court had concerns as to the designation of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh as a safe country of origin. The Italian legislation designating safe countries of origin referenced “data obtained from information sources provided by the relevant international organisations” without identifying those data or sources.
As to the accessibility of the sources used to designate a safe country, which is not mandated by the Directive, the Court held that in order for the concerned applicant to be able to rebut the presumption of adequate protection in the country of origin, the applicant must be granted access to the sources of information. Similarly in order for the national judicial authority to be able to conduct a “full ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law” aforesaid information must be made accessible. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant concerned and the relevant national judicial authority must be permitted sufficient and adequate access to the sources of information which led to the designation of the third country as a safe country of origin and the seized court may verify this designation with its own reliable sources of information.
Additionally, the national court asked whether the Directive prevents Member States from designating third countries as safe countries of origin if they do not meet the material conditions for certain categories of persons. The Court did refer to the upcoming amendment to the Directive in July 2026, which may provide for exceptions for clearly identifiable categories of persons, but deferred to the deliberations of the legislator. The Court concluded that the Directive precludes Member States from designation a safe country of origin which does not satisfy for certain categories of persons, the material conditions for such derogation.
C-97/24 The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth:
The case at hand related to Member State liability pertaining to the Irish Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth’s failure to provide S.A. and R.J. with housing, food water and other material reception conditions meeting their basic needs subsequent to their application for international protection in Ireland. The Irish authorities granted each applicant a single 25 euro voucher, but due to unavailability of accommodation at a reception centre, the applicants were not granted the daily expenses allowance provided to applicants for international protection provided for by Irish law. The applicants slept on the streets of Dublin or in temporary and precarious accommodation. They did not have sufficient food, means to maintain personal hygiene and their living conditions caused distress due to instances of violence.
After obtaining retroactive allowance and accommodation, the applicants sought compensation from Irish State for the conditions of their initial period after application for international protection. The Minister and the Advocate General put forth that their breach of the national rules implementing Directive 2013/33 and Article 1 of the Charter were due to an instance of force majeure. The Court recalled its earlier case law, wherein it found that saturation of reception facilities cannot justify any derogation from the minimum standards for the reception of applicants. In accordance with the conditions laid down for MS liability, the Court found that the complete failure to provide, even temporarily, material reception conditions which meet the basic needs of an applicant constitutes a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law. The Court found that MS cannot rely on the derogation system established in Art 18 (9) (b) of the Directive to justify its failure to fulfil its obligations towards the basic needs of applicants by pleading temporary exhaustion of housing capacity due to an significant and sudden influx of applicants seeking international protection.
C-573/24 NIZza:
The judgement handed down on the 2 October 2025 answered a preliminary reference question on the interpretation of Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications. The facts of the case concerned a third country national married to a German national who, in addition to qualifications in their country of origin, attained formal qualifications in Austria and then sought to practice medicine in Germany. The Court first ruled that the scope of Directive 2005/36 applied exclusively to Union citizens, and as such recognition of qualifications could not be achieved directly through this instrument. Secondly, the Court found that Art 24 (1) of Directive 2004/38 on the rights of Union citizens and their families to free movement, which lays down the principle of equal treatment was also not a viable avenue to justify the application of Directive 2005/36. This was due to the fact that the third country national’s spouse, a German national, had not exercised their right to free movement at any point and recognition was being sought by the third country national in the country where the Union citizen held nationality. As such, the preliminary question was ruled inadmissible as the third country national did not fall within the scope ratione personae of Directive 2005/36 and thus, questions on its interpretation were not necessary to enable the national court to give judgement.
Joined Cases C-636/23 + 637/23 Al Hoceima:
The first preliminary question addressed to the Court concerned the failure to grant a period for voluntary departure in the context of a return decision, the referring court asked whether the decision not to grant such a period may only be regarded as a means of enforcement of the return decision which therefore may not be challenged and which does not alter the legal position of the third country national concerned. The Court recalled that Member States are only permitted to refuse a period for voluntary departure whereby Art 7 (4) of Directive 2008/115 is applicable. The decision to grant a period for voluntary departure or indeed the failure to grant said period therefore has significant legal consequences and cannot be regarded as an enforcement measure which does not alter the third country national’s legal position. The Court further held that in light of Art 13 of Directive 2008/115 and Article 47 of the Charter on the right to an effective remedy, the decision not to grant a period for voluntary departure must be challengeable in legal proceedings. Thirdly, the issue as to whether the competent national authority may still impose an entry ban, even after a considerable period of time, on the basis of a return decision that does not grant a period for voluntary departure was examined by the Court. The Court clarified that the wording of Art 11 (1) Directive 2008/115 and the use of the verb “accompanying” does not entail that an entry ban and return decision must be adopted simultaneously but in fact, an entry ban should be imposed subsequent to a return decision as it means to supplement its effect by prohibiting the individual concerned from again entering and staying on the territory.
Finally, the Court answered the referring courts questions as to whether the unlawfulness of the provision relating to the period for voluntary departure leads to the annulment of the return decision on a whole. The Court held that the decision by the relevant national authority to grant or to not grant a period of voluntary departure is indeed an integral part of the obligation to return. As such, the unlawfulness of the refusal to grant a period for voluntary departure means that the return decision should be annulled in its entirety. In this finding, the Court emphasized that the obligation to return must be understood in a manner which proportionately balances the effectiveness of removal policy and respect for fundamental rights of the individual concerned.
C-793/23 Qassion:
The preliminary reference was made in the context of the rejection of an international protection and arranged transfer to Denmark of a Syrian national by Finland followed by an entry ban from the Finnish territory. The issue arose that the Syrian national had been denied an extension of her residency permit in Denmark and the referring court sought to understand whether this refusal for extension constituted a rejection decision in accordance with Art 18 (1) (d) of Regulation no 604/2013. The textual, contextual and teleological interpretation of the autonomous term “rejection” the Court found that it cannot be interpreted as including the non-extension or non-renewal or a residence document which was previous issued to a third country national through an application for international protection.
ECtHR Case Law:
B.F. v. Greece (application no. 59816/13)
The applicant concerned was an Iranian national who had arrived in Greece in August 2012, whereby he was arrested upon arrival due to his irregular entry into the country. He was released and subsequently arrested in July 2013 due to his irregular residence. The applicant remained in police custody for over 2 months whilst his application for asylum on ground of sexual orientation and religious beliefs were considered. The applicant was released in September 2013 and granted refugee status. The applicant alleged a violation of Art 3 ECHR due to the conditions of police custody, a violation of Art 5 ECHR due to his detention and Art 13 ECHR in conjunction with Art 3 ECHR due to the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention pending the examination of his asylum application.
The Court found a violation of Art 3 ECHR in light of the unrefuted evidence of overcrowding, lack of outdoor space, inadequate sanitary conditions and low-quality food which endured for the applicant’s 2 month and 18-day detention period. In conjunction with Art 3, a violation of Art 13 ECHR was also found by the Court. The Court noted that domestic law allowed for the opposition of detention which would entail an assessment by a judicial body of the circumstances and conditions of detention in light of the individual’s specific attributes (age, health etc.) and the consideration of less restrictive measures/transfer to alternative facilities. The applicant had not been afforded this manner of judicial review.
A violation of Art 5 para 1 ECHR, however, was not found by the Court. The Court divided the period of detention into two distinct periods: prior and subsequent to the applicant’s request for asylum. In the period prior to his application the Court considered that the detention was not arbitrary as it was in accordance with national law and aligned to the grounds for detention namely the prevention of his unlawful stay and execution of an expulsion measure. As to the secondary period, the Court reasoned that his detention pending the approval of his asylum application was in accordance with national law and pursued the objective of the speedy and effective examination of the asylum application. The Court noted that conditions of detention had held decisive weight in the finding of arbitrary detention in the case of minor asylum seekers. However, the Court noted that these deficiencies were insufficient to conclude a violation of Art 5 para 1 ECHR in the case of adult asylum seekers without specific vulnerabilities.
F.M. and Others v. Greece (no. 17622/21)*
The case concerned the sinking of a boat off the coast of Agonithisi on the 16th March 2019 and was brought by four applicants whose family members had perished in those events. The applicants alleged a violation of the procedural and substantive limb of Art 2 ECHR by the state of Greece.
As to the procedural limb of Art 2 ECHR, the Court found that the persons responsible for conduct all three of the investigations which took place belonged to the coast guard or the same military hierarchy to which the persons potentially responsible also belonged. The institutional and hierarchical independence of the investigation was therefore compromised. Additionally, the Court noted that the public prosecutor involved had claimed that the applicant’s had failed to submit a voice recording of one applicant which was paramount for establishing the date of the shipwreck, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Court indicated that the public prosecutor had relied on forensic evidence dated 10 April 2018, which had been drawn up following the autopsy of the bodies carried out on 17 March 2018 to conclude that the shipwreck had taken place on the 17 March 2018. This report featured numerus shortcomings, failing to take into account the relevant circumstance under which the bodies were discovered, failure to make distinctions between the different bodies and the circumstances in which they were found and failing to include any photographs which may have been decisive in the determination of the amount of time that they had been in the water prior to their discovery. Therefore, the time and date of the shipwreck was founded on inadequate evidence which contradicted the investigation of the forensic expert. These specific issues, in addition to the lack of institutional independence, led the Court to find a violation of the procedural limb of Art 2 ECHR.
As to the substantive limb of Art 2 ECHR, the Court considered contrary to the assertions of the national authorities, that they were in possession of adequate information to alert them to the possibility of the boat carrying the applicant’s families sinking and therefore should have known that there was a real and imminent risk to their lives. As to the appropriateness of the action taken by the Government, the Court noted (amongst other concerns), the Government’s failure to verify the boat’s last coordinates, the inability to establish whether an adequate search of the boat’s last known location was undertaken, the Government’s undertaking of the operation as a search for a “boat in distress” rather than a search for persons at sea. The Court accordingly found a violation of the substantive limb of Art 2 ECHR.
Sahiti v. Belgium (no. 24421/20)*
The case largely concerned the absence of a final decision on the applicant’s request for a residence permit on medical grounds lodged in 2010. Find OE and CCE The applicant alleged a violation of Art 3 and 8 ECHR. The applicant alleged that in light of his medical conditions, should his residency be rejected and his return to his home country of Kosovo by mandated, this would entail a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the Court noted that the applicant had not yet been made subject to such a removal decision as all those issues had been withdrawn by the Office des Étrangers (“OE”) or annulled by the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (“ CCE”). Thus, this complaint was inadmissible.
The second complaint of the applicant, however, referred to an interference with his right to private and family life under Art 8 ECHR, as he had been caught in a “procedural ping-pong” between the OE and the CCE for fifteen years. The Court found that the length of the proceedings and the nine separate decisions issues by the OE and then withdrawn or annulled by the CCE placed the applicant in a situation of persistent uncertainty contrary to the principle of legal certainty which is an essential component of the rule of law. The Court accordingly found a violation of the positive obligation to ensure respect for the right enshrined in Art 8 ECHR.
