Marinakis: Venizelos Analysis for Migration – We do not activate Article 15 of the ECHR

“When a constitutionalist is placed, he is not based on whether he has co -ordinated or ruled. It is a scientific analysis and is respected in the context of democratic function, “Mr Marinakis initially said, adding that” we do not activate Article 15 of its ECHR We simply rely on that there are conditions that refer to this article. We rely on a series of decisions, case law, that document the position. It is by analogy the same documentation as it was done in 2020. ” “Addressing this crisis at the legal and operational level was absolutely successful and we have every reason to believe that we will have the same result this time. Greece is a rule of law, this has been proved by the stamp of the European Commission, but it is also a state that always puts – the laws – the interests of the country. The country was owed to react to an emergency And we will do so by applying the applicable provisions, ”concluded Pavlos Marinakis

Venizelos resolution

In his post, Evangelos Venizelos today raised strong reflection on the content of the causal report that accompanies the amendment to prevent Libya and North Africa. The objection of the former PASOK minister and president concerns the invocation of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which – according to Mr Venizelos, is “unacceptable” and “raises the issue of the highest importance of the rule of law in our country. Reasoning – statement from the amendment, in addition to obviously the other legal problems it raises. “

Venizelos post for migratory

The Government cites Article 15 ECHR, namely the corresponding Article 48 Council. For the implementation of the Siege Law!

In the explanatory memorandum (analysis of the consequences of regulation) of the amendment tabled by the relevant ministers for the treatment of those incoming in the country “illegally by any floating medium derived from North Africa”, the following statement is included:

‘They are [ δε] The conditions of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which the Contracting States, in the event of a public risk that threatens the life of the nation, may even take measures even in breach of the obligations provided for in the Convention, in the required condition required by the situation.

Let’s see what that means.

Article 15 of the ECHR, corresponding to Article 48 of the Greek Constitution on the Siege Status (Military Law), is as follows:

“Article 15
Derogation in case of emergency
1. In the event of a war or other public risk threatening the life of the nation, each high contract may have taken measures in violation of this contract of procedure, in the demand required by the state of which are absolutely necessary and in the case of any other obligations. International Law.

2. The preceding provision shall not allow Article 2 of Article 2, in the case of death as a result of normal war acts, or Articles 3, 4 (para. 1) and 7.

3. The Exercises This right of the infringement of the infringement of high Contracting Parties shall observe the Secretary of the Council of Europe, fully aware of the measures taken as well as the causes that have taken them. They must also inform the Secretary -General of the Council of Europe on the date on which these measures ceased to be applicable and the provisions of the Convention were re -enacted. “

According to the Summary by the Secretariat of the European Court of Justice of the Human Rights of the Jurisprudence on the conditions for the application of Article 15 ECHR, the following shall apply:

“Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the governments of the Member States of the Convention, under exceptional conditions, the ability to deviate, in a temporary, limited and supervision, by their obligation to ensure certain rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. The use of this provision is governed by the following procedural and substantive conditions:

• Invoice the right to derogation can only be done in times of war or other emergency that threatens the life of the nation;

• A state may take measures of derogation from its obligations under the contract only to the extent required by the needs of the situation;

• Any derogation may not be incompatible with other international obligations of the state;

• Some rights in the contract are not possible at all: Article 15 § 2 prohibits any derogation on the right to life (except for legal acts), the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading or punishment, the prohibition of labor and labor. Correspondingly, no derogation is permitted by:

– Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 (abolition of the death penalty in times of peace),
– Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 (abolition of the death penalty under any circumstances),
– Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offense).

• Finally, at a procedural level, the state using the right to derogation must fully inform the Secretary -General of the Council of Europe. “

In this case, if the conditions referred to in Article 15 (1) of the ECHR are in fact, the provisions of Article 48 Council could apply to the National Constitutional Class. , that is, to apply the whole of the territory or part of the state on the state of the siege! Obviously this is inappropriate. At least so I hope.

I understand the intensity of the problem of migratory flows from Libya and wider from North Africa. The country has been found in similar pressure conditions many times in previous years. Measures have been taken, sometimes more and sometimes less effective, but always within the framework of the Constitution that is inseparable by the ECHR and under the international judicial audit of the ECtHR. There are even cases pending in Strasbourg related to addressing migratory flows that have raised issues regarding Article 15 ECHR.

The easy and unacceptable invocation of this ECHR provision raises the question of the highest importance of the rule of law in our country and the respect of its fundamental obligations under international law. The least to be done immediately is the revocation of this etiological thought – a statement from the amendment, in addition to obviously the other legal problems it raises.