The Washington Centre for Human Rights expresses deep concern over the increasing politicisation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its handling of immigration and asylum cases. Recent developments indicate that political pressures and narratives are undermining the impartiality and integrity of the Court, threatening the fundamental principles of human rights protection across Europe.
Mounting Political Pressures on the ECtHR
The ECtHR has long served as a cornerstone for the protection of human rights in Europe, particularly for vulnerable groups such as migrants and asylum seekers. However, in recent years, the Court has come under increasing pressure from national governments and political actors seeking to influence its decisions on migration and border control. This trend has become particularly acute as migration flows have risen and political rhetoric around border security has intensified.
On May 15–16, 2025, the ECtHR hosted a high-level roundtable on immigration and asylum, highlighting the growing complexity and politicisation of migration issues across Europe. The roundtable brought together judges and legal experts from the ECtHR, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and national courts to discuss the challenges of maintaining judicial independence amid mounting political pressures.
Recent Case Law: A Reflection of Political Tensions
Recent judgments by the ECtHR and the CJEU underscore the impact of political narratives on judicial outcomes. In January 2025, the ECtHR issued a landmark ruling in A.R.E. v. Greece, confirming Greece’s systematic practice of pushbacks—summary returns of migrants and asylum seekers to Turkey without proper assessment of their protection needs. Despite the Greek government’s denial of such practices, the Court found overwhelming evidence of violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
Similarly, the CJEU has addressed the compatibility of national migration policies with EU law. In December 2024 and February 2025, the CJEU issued significant rulings on Dublin transfers, civic integration requirements, and the Temporary Protection Directive, emphasizing the need for effective remedies and fair procedures for asylum seekers. These cases highlight the tension between national sovereignty and supranational human rights obligations, a tension often exploited for political gain.
Pushbacks and the Politicisation of Human Rights Protections
The ECtHR has examined numerous cases involving pushbacks at land and sea borders, where migrants and asylum seekers are denied the opportunity to lodge asylum claims or are summarily returned to countries where they risk harm. In February 2025, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR heard three high-profile cases against Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, focusing on allegations of unlawful pushbacks to Belarus. These cases are the first to address the human rights implications of so-called “instrumentalized” migration, where states justify restrictive measures under the guise of national security or emergency situations.
Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have documented how Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have implemented harsh migration controls and pushback practices, often citing security concerns or the actions of neighboring states as justification. While these states argue that legal avenues for asylum remain available, applicants and advocates contest the genuine accessibility of such procedures.
Instrumentalization of Migration: A Dangerous Precedent
The invocation of “instrumentalized” migration by EU member states sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion of human rights protections. While the European Convention on Human Rights does not explicitly guarantee the right to seek asylum, it enshrines the principle of non-refoulement and the right to effective remedies for those facing return to countries where they risk persecution or inhuman treatment. Efforts to carve out exceptions to these protections based on political or security considerations undermine the universality and indivisibility of human rights.
At the February 2025 hearings, none of the respondent states openly advocated for the suspension of the right to seek asylum. However, the practical barriers to accessing asylum procedures—such as border closures, summary returns, and restrictive regulations—raise serious concerns about the integrity of human rights protections in practice. The ECtHR’s forthcoming judgments will be critical in determining whether states can continue to circumvent their obligations under the guise of emergency or security needs.
Denials of Overreach: Judicial Independence at Risk
In response to mounting criticism, the ECtHR has publicly denied allegations of overreaching in its immigration and asylum rulings. Nevertheless, the perception of politicisation persists, fueled by statements from national leaders and media outlets accusing the Court of interfering in domestic affairs. Such rhetoric threatens to delegitimize the Court and weaken the enforcement of human rights standards across Europe.
The Need for Judicial Impartiality and Accountability
The Washington Centre for Human Rights calls on European governments, the Council of Europe, and the broader international community to respect the independence of the ECtHR and uphold the rule of law. Politicising the Court’s work not only undermines the rights of migrants and asylum seekers but also erodes public trust in the entire human rights protection system.
We urge the ECtHR to continue its rigorous, evidence-based approach to adjudicating migration cases and to resist external pressures that seek to compromise its impartiality. The Court must remain a bulwark against the normalization of discriminatory practices and the erosion of fundamental rights.
Reaffirming Human Rights in the Face of Political Pressure
The politicisation of the European Court of Human Rights in immigration matters represents a grave threat to the protection of vulnerable individuals and the credibility of the international human rights system. As migration continues to shape the political landscape of Europe, it is imperative that the ECtHR and all relevant institutions remain steadfast in their commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law.
The Washington Centre for Human Rights stands in solidarity with all those who seek protection from persecution and calls for renewed vigilance against any attempts to undermine the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights.
For media inquiries, please contact:
Washington Centre for Human Rights
info@washingtoncentre.org