Denmark Leads Criticism of European Court of Human Rights on Asylum

Key Takeaways

• Denmark and eight countries challenge European Court of Human Rights on migration rulings, May 22, 2025.
• Denmark leads push criticizing Court’s broad asylum interpretations, aiming to tighten deportation rules.
• Challenges risk weakening human rights protections and fragmenting European migration cooperation.

Denmark Leads European Challenge to Human Rights Court Over Asylum Rulings

On May 22, 2025, Denmark, together with Italy and seven other European countries, took a bold step by openly challenging the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) over its decisions on migration and deportation. This move, led by Denmark as it prepares to take over the rotating presidency of the European Union in July 2025, signals a major shift in how some European countries want to handle asylum and migration issues. The challenge could have wide effects on human rights protections, asylum seekers, and the future of European cooperation.

Who, What, When, Where, and Why

Who: Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
What: Signed a joint letter criticizing the European Court of Human Rights for its rulings on migration and deportation
When: May 22, 2025
Where: Across Europe, with Denmark and Italy leading the initiative
Why: These countries argue that the Court’s decisions make it harder for them to control migration and deport people who break the law, and that the Court is interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights too broadly, especially in asylum cases.

Let’s break down what this means, why it matters, and how it could affect people seeking asylum, European governments, and the future of human rights in Europe.

Joint Letter: What Denmark and Allies Want

The joint letter, signed by nine countries, calls for a “new and open-minded conversation” about how the European Court of Human Rights interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The main points of criticism are:

• Restrictions on Deportations: The countries say the Court is making it too hard to deport “criminal foreign nationals.”
• Scope of the Convention: They argue the Court is stretching the Convention’s meaning beyond what was originally intended, especially when it comes to asylum seekers.
• National Decision-Making: The letter says the Court’s rulings limit the ability of democratically elected governments to make their own decisions about migration.
• Modern Migration Challenges: The signatories believe the Court’s approach does not reflect the current realities of irregular migration, suggesting that what worked in the past may not be the right answer today.

Denmark’s Role and Hardline Immigration Policies

Denmark’s leadership in this challenge is not surprising. Over the past few years, Denmark has adopted some of the strictest immigration policies in Europe. Under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Denmark has aimed for a “zero refugee” policy since 2019. Here are some key facts:

• Record Low Asylum Applications: In the past year, Denmark received only 864 asylum applications, the lowest number on record.
• Deportation Law: In 2021, Denmark passed a law allowing the government to send asylum seekers to other countries while their applications are processed.
• Revoking Residence Permits: Starting January 1, 2024, Denmark began revoking temporary residence permits for refugees who travel back to their home countries, no matter how long they have lived in Denmark.

The Danish government explains these measures by saying, “When we assume that you no longer risk persecution in your home country, your residence permit may be revoked.”

International Response: Criticism and Warnings

The reaction to Denmark’s initiative has been strong, especially from human rights organizations and the Council of Europe, which oversees the European Court of Human Rights.

• Council of Europe’s Warning: Alain Berset, representing the Council of Europe, warned that “politicizing the Court is not” acceptable and that “no judiciary should face political pressure.” He reminded everyone that the Court is “the legal arm of the Council of Europe—created by our member states, established by sovereign choice.”
• Human Rights Watch: The organization called the letter “an unjustified and dangerous attack to the citizens of Europe, migrants and to Europe’s global standing.”
• Picum: This group, which supports undocumented migrants, described the move as “a textbook case of ‘crimmigration’—the conflation of migration and crime to crack down on people seeking safety and livelihood in Europe.”

Broader European Context: A Shift in Asylum Policies

Denmark’s challenge comes at a time when many European countries are rethinking their asylum and migration policies. Several trends are emerging:

• Tougher Asylum Laws: Countries like Germany, Poland, and Sweden are considering stricter asylum laws, including faster deportations and tighter border controls.
• Political Pressure: The European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the EU, is pushing for rules similar to those that led to Hungary being fined by both the ECtHR and the EU Court of Justice.
• Changing EU Approach: The European Commission is now proposing to make it easier for member states to reject asylum applications and to allow protection claims to be processed in other countries.

Legal and Political Implications

This challenge to the European Court of Human Rights raises important questions about the balance between national sovereignty and international human rights obligations. Here are some of the main issues:

• Authority of the Court: The letter questions whether the Court should have the power to limit how countries control migration.
• Denmark’s EU Presidency: With Denmark set to lead the EU from July 2025, migration control is likely to be a top priority.
• Potential for Conflict: The move could create tension with EU efforts to have common rules for immigration and asylum, such as the new ETIAS visa waiver program launching in May 2025.
• Risk of Fragmentation: If more countries follow Denmark’s lead, there is a risk that coordinated European approaches to migration could break down.

Expert Opinions: What’s at Stake?

Legal and human rights experts warn that weakening the European Court of Human Rights could have serious consequences for everyone in Europe, not just migrants.

• Judith Sunderland, Human Rights Watch: She says, “The European Court of Human Rights is there to protect us all, is deeply respectful of the role of national governments and courts, and careful not to overstep.”
• Silvia Carta, Picum: She argues, “If leaders genuinely care about people’s safety and protecting victims, they should stop dismantling welfare systems and start investing in care, instead of scapegoating migrants for political gain.”
• Alain Berset, Council of Europe: He warns that the Court “must not be weaponized—neither against governments, nor by them,” and highlights its unique role as “the only international court adjudicating violations of human rights in the context of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.”

How the Court Works: A Simple Explanation

The European Court of Human Rights is an international court based in Strasbourg, France. It was set up by the Council of Europe, which is separate from the European Union. The Court’s job is to make sure that countries follow the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty that protects basic rights like the right to life, freedom from torture, and the right to a fair trial.

When someone believes their rights under the Convention have been violated, they can bring a case to the Court after they have tried all possible legal options in their own country. The Court’s decisions are binding, which means countries are supposed to follow them.

For more information about the European Court of Human Rights and how it works, you can visit the official Council of Europe ECtHR page.

Why Denmark’s Challenge Matters for Asylum Seekers

For people seeking asylum, the European Court of Human Rights has often been a last line of protection. The Court has ruled in many cases that countries cannot send people back to places where they might face torture, death, or other serious harm. These rulings have sometimes stopped deportations, even when national governments wanted to go ahead.

If Denmark and its allies succeed in limiting the Court’s power, it could become much harder for asylum seekers to get protection. Countries might be able to deport people more easily, even if there are risks to their safety.

As reported by VisaVerge.com, this challenge could also encourage other countries to adopt stricter asylum policies, leading to fewer protections for people fleeing war, persecution, or violence.

Potential Impact on European Cooperation

The challenge to the Court could also affect how European countries work together on migration. The European Union has been trying to create common rules for asylum and border control, but disagreements between countries have made this difficult.

• ETIAS Visa Waiver Program: The new ETIAS system, set to launch in May 2025, will require travelers from many countries to get approval before entering the Schengen Area. If countries start ignoring EU rules or the Court’s decisions, it could make programs like ETIAS less effective.
• Risk of “Forum Shopping”: If some countries have much stricter rules than others, asylum seekers might try to reach countries with more protections, putting more pressure on those states.

What Happens Next?

Several things are likely to happen in the coming months:

1. Denmark’s EU Presidency: Starting in July 2025, Denmark will have more influence over the EU’s agenda and is expected to push for tougher migration controls.
2. Possible New Allies: Other countries, such as Germany, France, Greece, Sweden, Hungary, and Slovakia, may join Denmark’s initiative, especially if they have faced ECtHR rulings against them in asylum cases.
3. Council of Europe Response: The Council of Europe will need to respond officially to the joint letter. Early signs suggest they will defend the Court’s independence strongly.
4. Debate Over Human Rights: The discussion could shape how the ETIAS visa waiver program and other EU migration policies are put into practice.

What Should Stakeholders Do?

• Asylum Seekers: Stay informed about changes in asylum laws and procedures in the country where you are applying. If you are facing deportation or have questions about your rights, seek legal advice as soon as possible.
• Governments: Balance the need for border control with respect for international human rights obligations. Any changes to asylum laws should be clearly explained and should not put people at risk of harm.
• Advocacy Groups: Continue to monitor developments and provide support to those affected by changes in asylum policy. Work with European and international bodies to defend the rights of migrants and refugees.
• Employers and Communities: Be aware that changes in asylum and migration policy can affect the availability of workers and the integration of newcomers.

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Europe

Denmark’s challenge to the European Court of Human Rights marks a key moment in European politics. It raises important questions about how to balance national control over borders with the need to protect basic human rights. The outcome will affect not only asylum seekers but also the future of European cooperation and the continent’s commitment to human rights.

As the debate continues, it is important for all sides to remember the lessons of history and the reasons why the European Convention on Human Rights was created after World War II: to protect people from abuse and to make sure that everyone, no matter where they come from, is treated fairly and with dignity.

For those seeking more information on asylum procedures and rights in Europe, the European Union’s official migration and home affairs page provides up-to-date resources and guidance.

By following these developments closely, individuals and organizations can better prepare for the changes ahead and continue to support the rights and safety of all people in Europe.

Learn Today

European Court of Human Rights → International court ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, headquartered in Strasbourg, France.
European Convention on Human Rights → A treaty protecting fundamental human rights across Europe, interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.
Deportation → The legal removal of a non-citizen from a country, typically for breaking immigration or criminal laws.
Asylum Seeker → A person fleeing persecution who requests protection and refuge in another country.
ETIAS → European Travel Information and Authorization System, a visa waiver program launching May 2025 for entry into the Schengen Area.

This Article in a Nutshell

On May 22, 2025, Denmark and eight European countries challenged the European Court of Human Rights over migration rulings, signaling major shifts in asylum policies and European cooperation, potentially reducing protections for asylum seekers and increasing national control over migration decisions.
— By VisaVerge.com