The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Greece over illegal migrant deportations, condemning such practices as “systematic”. This pivotal decision could influence how Europe manages migration at its borders
In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, has unanimously ruled against Greece over illegal pushbacks of third country nationals, calling these a “systematic” practice.
This marks the first instance in which Greece has been publicly held accountable for implementing a policy that it has consistently denied, as well as the first time the European Court of Human Rights has addressed a pushback complaint involving Greek authorities.
As per the Court’s January 2025 decision, there is “strong indication” that Greece has expelled migrants without proper risk assessments, unlawfully detained individuals, and conducted secret border operations; actions constituting a breach of articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights , prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, respectively.
The judgment focused on two significant cases filed among 47 total applicants between January and December 2021.
In one case, the court found Greece had expelled a Turkish national without presenting her the possibility to file for asylum, and unlawfully detained her in what was viewed as an “enforced disappearance”.
The woman, who had crossed Evros to escape political persecution in Turkey, had uploaded a video showing her location in Greece; this was used as concrete evidence of her arrival in the country, which the judges took into consideration. The ECHR has ordered Greece to pay €20,000 in compensation to the victim.
A second case involving an unaccompanied Afghan minor was deemed inadmissible due to lack of evidence.
Pending cases involve applicants from multiple countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. These individuals allege violations of fundamental human rights, including the right to life, prohibition of torture, right to liberty, and access to effective healthcare.
The Greek government representatives who attended the hearings have dismissed the allegations, questioning the credibility of the evidence provided and asserting that the country’s border policies adhere to international law.
Collecting evidence of a “ghost practice”
A joint_third_party_intervention submitted in August 2023 by human rights organisations ECCHR (European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights), PRO ASYL, and Refugee Support Aegean had claimed that pushbacks are not isolated incidents but part of a coordinated migration deterrence policy.
Their evidence contained disturbing details of Greece’s border control operations, describing their methods as diverse and brutal, with refugees being secretly detained in the Evros region, forcibly returned in rubber dinghies, stopped near shores, and forced onto inflatable rafts in the Aegean Sea.
The organisations documented systematic obstacles preventing accountability, highlighting how the secret nature of these operations and the victims’ undocumented status effectively shield perpetrators from investigation.
As part of a team of lawyers specialising in immigration law, Eirini Vareltzidou, an associate attorney based in Northern Greece, has dealt repeatedly with the bureaucracy of complex cases involving asylum seekers.
As she explains, despite the high numbers of cases reported, proving them remains extremely difficult:
“The usual practice involves informally detaining individuals without recording their details and then returning them immediately, which precludes the possibility of obtaining official documents or evidence”, Vareltzidou said to OBCT.
“The only evidence available is often limited to messages sent to relatives or friends before or during the arrest. Although this means of evidence may be considered insufficient by some authorities, it does not negate the fact that such refoulements do occur”.
Over the years, Greek authorities have consistently and emphatically denied such practices. With domestic legal channels proving ineffective, pushback victims have been increasingly turning to international courts like the ECHR to seek justice, despite the heightened evidentiary standards applying to such cases.
The court’s findings underscore a critical issue of institutional impunity, with Greek authorities consistently failing to recognise and investigate allegations of human rights violations.
While official narratives dismiss the existence of pushbacks, frontline humanitarian workers continue to collect harrowing accounts of people being apprehended and expelled without due process.
“It was never our intention to document or expose pushbacks, but such stories became part of our daily reality”, says to OBCT cultural mediator and interpreter Zhegir Tayib. “The doctors and social workers I work with want to know how the people at the camp entered the country with the sole purpose of providing medical and psychological support”.
Experienced in working with both international organisations and smaller community centres assisting asylum seekers, Tayib recounts translating the testimonies of migrants who had been forcibly pushed back at the borders,often in inhumane conditions, but had managed to re-enter Greek territory.
“When you translate, you become the voice of that other person. From a human point of view, my experience is that pushback victims carry their trauma for a long time; it informs their decisions and affects their families and communities. No matter the country they end up in, violence often triggers more violence and this can’t be good for any society”.
Borders, rights, and national concerns
The ECHR verdict arrives at a critical juncture when several EU member states are advocating for stricter immigration controls, potentially creating a significant legal and political challenge.
By setting a precedent that prioritises individual human rights over blanket security measures, the ruling may compel European countries to fundamentally reassess their approach to border management, forcing a delicate balance between national security concerns and international humanitarian obligations.
Countries like Italy, Spain, and Malta have faced similar legal challenges regarding their border control practices, with human rights organisations increasingly referring to international legal mechanisms to challenge summary expulsions and detention practices.
The Greece ruling could serve as a critical precedent, potentially compelling European countries to develop more nuanced, rights-respecting approaches to migration management that balance national security concerns with fundamental human rights protections.