European ministers from the Council of Europe‘s 46 member states have unanimously supported a groundbreaking plan to reinterpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for tackling illegal migration. Announced after talks in Strasbourg, the initiative tasks experts with drafting a political declaration by May 2026 to limit ECHR barriers to deportations without altering the treaty text. Spearheaded by nations like Denmark, Italy, and the UK, this move addresses frustrations over Articles 3 and 8 blocking removals of failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals amid surging irregular entries.
Surge in Illegal Migration Drives Urgent Reforms
The push comes against a backdrop of escalating irregular migration pressures across Europe. In 2023 alone, EU authorities detected 1.3 million non-EU citizens present illegally, a 13% rise from the previous year, with Germany logging 264,000 cases (21%), Italy 195,000 (15%), and Hungary 160,000 (13%). Over the past decade, migration-related cases represent less than 1% of the European Court of Human Rights’ 420,000 applications, with over 90% dismissed as inadmissible or finding no violations.
This low volume belies the outsized impact, as interpretations of Article 3 (banning torture or inhuman treatment) and Article 8 (protecting private and family life) frequently halt deportations. Governments argue these rulings impose “excessive restrictions,” prompting a May 22, 2025, open letter from nine countries—including Denmark, Italy, Poland, and Belgium calling for clarification. Ministers now back the Council’s steering committee on human rights (CDDH) to produce a non-binding declaration balancing human rights with effective returns.
Core Elements of the Proposed Declaration
The declaration targets specific ECHR misapplications without rewriting the 1950 convention, marking its first major evolution in 75 years. Key proposals include narrowing “family life” definitions to prevent manipulation by those without legal stay rights, restricting “inhuman treatment” claims to the gravest cases, and facilitating “returns hubs” outside Europe. Additional focuses encompass combating human trafficking and enabling proportionate expulsions of foreign nationals with criminal records.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy emphasized that the ECHR remains a “vital cornerstone of peace” but must adapt, stating: “The definition of ‘family life’ cannot be manipulated to obstruct removal of individuals with no legal right to stay… [and] the threshold for ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ should be limited to the most severe cases.” He added that nations must make “proportionate decisions on expelling foreign criminals,” underscoring the treaty’s non-static nature.
High-Profile Statements Signal Broad Consensus
Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset hailed the outcome as the “beginning of a consensus-based process,” stressing migration as a “priority for nations and citizens.” He outlined a vision to reconcile “liberty and security, justice and responsibility” while safeguarding the convention’s integrity.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, alongside Denmark’s Justice Minister, advocated updating the ECHR for “mass mobility,” noting that “acknowledging legitimate concerns is what politics should embody.” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood criticized current interpretations as reaching “absurd levels,” citing blocks on deportations due to perceived inadequacies in home countries’ prisons or mental health services. A joint statement from supportive states welcomed Berset’s four-point proposal, framing it as essential modernization.
Political Reactions Highlight Divisions and Urgency
Support spans 15-20 nations, with Denmark and Italy credited for rallying a majority post the May letter. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned of potential ECHR withdrawal if an early 2026 ruling on migrant pushbacks goes against Warsaw. In the UK, Conservatives and Reform UK demand outright exit, arguing the court shields “criminals and illegal entrants.”
Ireland’s Justice Minister, via spokesperson, affirmed commitment to ensuring the ECHR fulfills its “core objectives” amid migration challenges. This aligns with the EU’s recent migration pact, which streamlines deportations and permits offshore asylum processing, reflecting continent-wide tightening.
Expert Analyses Offer Nuanced Views
Belgian jurist Marc Bossuyt, former constitutional court president, captured government frustrations, noting Article 3’s overreach into mandating “proper asylum processes” and “adequate reception” conditions. He called for stricter Article 8 readings to prevent national judges from mirroring Strasbourg’s leniency.
Conversely, Strasbourg professor Peggy Ducoulombier contested obstruction claims, pointing to the system’s minimal caseload and broad protections: “Much to lose by undermining it.” Céline Romainville from Catholic University of Louvain accused critics of inflating isolated rulings without full case law context. Proponents maintain the ECHR’s migration role is “overstated,” safeguarding universal rights.
Broader Implications for Migration Policy
This endorsement could reshape enforcement across the 46-member bloc, including non-EU states like the UK. By clarifying not amending the ECHR, it sidesteps withdrawal threats while addressing “wait-and-see” dynamics in returns. Success hinges on the CDDH’s draft, due mid-2026, amid parallel EU efforts.
For border states like Italy and Germany, absorbing migration spikes, the plan promises relief without compromising human rights foundations. Critics warn of politicization risks, but backers see it as pragmatic evolution for 21st-century flows. As talks advance, the declaration positions the Council as a migration policy innovator.
Stakeholders eye May 2026 adoption as a litmus test for ECHR relevance in an era of global mobility crises.
