CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
149
THE PLACE OF REFUGEE RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN LEGAL
SYSTEM: INTEGRATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES
Behruz Sherpulotovich Vakilov
1st-Year Master's Student
Faculty of International Law
University of World Economy and Diplomacy
Email: bvakilov0327@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15472215
Abstract.
This article explores the position of refugee rights within the
European legal system, analyzing how core human rights principles are
integrated into laws and policies governing asylum and migration. It examines
international legal obligations, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and their influence on
European Union (EU) legislation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The article also considers the impact of recent refugee crises on the evolution of
legal norms and assesses whether the European legal framework sufficiently
protects the rights of refugees, especially in the context of border controls,
detention, non-refoulement, and socio-economic rights. Through doctrinal and
comparative legal analysis, the paper argues for a more cohesive and rights-
based approach to refugee protection in Europe.
Keywords:
Refugee rights, European legal system, human rights, European
Union, ECHR, asylum, non-refoulement, ECtHR, migration law, international
protection
Introduction.
The ongoing challenges posed by global displacement have
placed refugee protection at the forefront of European legal and political
discourse. In recent decades, the European legal system has become a pivotal
arena for defining and defending refugee rights. As migration pressures increase
due to armed conflicts, political persecution, and climate change, the legal
mechanisms designed to safeguard the rights of refugees are being tested.
This article investigates the integration of human rights principles into the
European refugee protection regime. It focuses on the legal interplay between
international refugee law and European human rights law, emphasizing the
normative frameworks that guide states' obligations toward asylum seekers and
refugees. Special attention is given to how the European Court of Human Rights
and the Court of Justice of the European Union interpret and enforce such rights
within the European context.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
150
The 1951 Refugee Convention and Its Relevance in Europe. The
cornerstone of refugee protection is the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status
of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, which define a refugee and outline the rights
and obligations of both refugees and host states. Although the Convention is an
international treaty, it has been deeply embedded in European legal systems
through national legislation and EU directives.
One of the key principles is non-refoulement (Article 33), prohibiting the
return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be
threatened. This principle is considered a peremptory norm of international law
and is reinforced in European human rights instruments.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR, adopted in
1950 under the Council of Europe, does not directly regulate asylum but
provides crucial human rights safeguards for everyone within the jurisdiction of
its signatories, including refugees and asylum seekers. Article 3 (prohibition of
torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and Article 8 (right to private
and family life) are particularly significant in asylum jurisprudence.
The ECtHR has interpreted these rights in a manner that effectively
supports refugee protection. For example, in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, the
Court found violations of Article 3 due to inhumane conditions faced by asylum
seekers returned under the Dublin Regulation, thereby indirectly enforcing the
non-refoulement principle.
The Common European Asylum System. The CEAS represents the EU’s
commitment to harmonizing asylum procedures and standards across member
states. It comprises several key legal instruments:
• Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU)
• Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU)
• Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU)
• Dublin III Regulation (604/2013)
These instruments aim to ensure uniform standards for refugee status
determination, reception conditions, and burden-sharing. However, disparities
in implementation and systemic deficiencies in some states have undermined
the effectiveness of the CEAS.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Charter, which became
legally binding with the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, elevates human rights within the
EU legal order. Article 18 explicitly guarantees the right to asylum in accordance
with the 1951 Convention. Article 19 reinforces the non-refoulement principle
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
151
by prohibiting collective expulsions and removals to countries where individuals
risk serious harm.
The CJEU has increasingly interpreted EU asylum law in light of the Charter,
as seen in NS v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-411/10), where
the Court ruled that member states must not transfer asylum seekers to other
EU states where systemic deficiencies in asylum procedures may violate their
fundamental rights.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR plays a critical
role in shaping refugee rights through its interpretation of the European
Convention on Human Rights. Even though the Convention does not directly
mention asylum, the Court has consistently interpreted its provisions to apply to
refugees and asylum seekers in a protective manner.
A key case in this context is Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, where the Court
ruled that the interception and forced return of migrants on the high seas
violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 4
of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion). The Court emphasized
that ECHR rights apply extraterritorially when a state exercises effective control
over individuals, reinforcing the universality and indivisibility of human rights
protections for refugees.
In M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, as mentioned earlier, the Court established
that inhumane reception conditions and deficient asylum procedures can
themselves amount to a violation of Article 3. This decision triggered
widespread debate over the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation and led
to a temporary suspension of transfers to Greece by several EU countries.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU, while
traditionally more focused on economic and institutional matters, has become
an increasingly influential div in refugee protection, particularly after the
Lisbon Treaty.
In Abdullah v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-175/17), the CJEU ruled on
the cessation of refugee status under the Qualification Directive, emphasizing
the need to assess whether the individual continues to face a real risk upon
return. The Court emphasized consistency with international refugee law and
the Charter of Fundamental Rights, reinforcing a rights-based interpretation.
The Jawo v. Germany (C-163/17) ruling also demonstrated the Court's
commitment to human rights: it ruled that an asylum seeker cannot be
transferred under Dublin rules if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading
treatment due to systemic flaws in the receiving state's asylum system.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
152
Legal Nature and Binding Force. Non-refoulement, as enshrined in Article
33 of the 1951 Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR, prohibits states from
expelling or returning an individual to a country where they face a real risk of
persecution, torture, or other serious harm. In the European context, this
principle has gained additional strength through its recognition in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights (Article 19) and national constitutions.
The ECtHR has affirmed that non-refoulement is an absolute right under
Article 3, meaning it allows for no exceptions or derogations, even in cases
involving national security or terrorism.
Despite its strong legal basis, the application of non-refoulement in practice
faces substantial challenges. Border pushbacks, offshore processing, and third-
country agreements have led to widespread criticism from human rights
organizations and scholars. These practices often circumvent judicial oversight
and place refugees at risk of indirect refoulement.
Moreover, the concept of “safe third country” has been used to justify
denying asylum claims without a full assessment of the risk upon return, raising
serious concerns about compliance with international standards.
Legal Framework. The Reception Conditions Directive outlines minimum
standards for the housing, health care, and subsistence of asylum seekers. It
obliges member states to ensure a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of applicants.
However, reports from civil society and EU bodies highlight significant
discrepancies in implementation. In countries like Hungary and Greece,
reception conditions have been repeatedly criticized for violating basic human
dignity.
Access to Health, Education, and Employment. Access to socio-economic
rights is a fundamental component of refugee protection. The Qualification
Directive grants recognized refugees and subsidiary protection beneficiaries
access to health care, education, and the labor market. However, in practice,
bureaucratic barriers, language obstacles, and xenophobia often impede full
enjoyment of these rights.
Moreover, the ECtHR has expanded the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR (right
to private and family life) to cover aspects of integration, education, and even
housing in certain refugee-related cases, such as Paposhvili v. Belgium, where
the Court stressed the need for humane treatment of seriously ill migrants.
Detention of Asylum Seekers. While EU law permits detention under
specific conditions (e.g., to verify identity or prevent absconding), the ECtHR has
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
153
held that such detention must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate under
Article 5 of the ECHR.
In Saadi v. United Kingdom, the Court upheld detention during the initial
asylum determination but stressed that it must be accompanied by procedural
safeguards. Arbitrary or prolonged detention without judicial oversight has been
deemed unlawful in several rulings.
External Border Control and the Rise of Pushbacks. Pushbacks—where
migrants are summarily expelled without due process—have been widely
reported at EU external borders, particularly in Croatia, Greece, and Hungary.
These practices violate both the procedural rights of asylum seekers and the
non-refoulement principle.
The ECtHR and human rights NGOs have raised concerns over these
incidents, but enforcement mechanisms remain weak. The European Border and
Coast Guard Agency has faced scrutiny over its complicity in such actions,
prompting calls for stronger accountability and transparency.
Legal Status and Pathways to Permanent Residency. After recognition of
refugee status or subsidiary protection, individuals are entitled under EU law to
residence permits, access to social benefits, and in some cases, eventual
naturalization. The Qualification Directive provides a harmonized framework for
these rights, ensuring that recognized refugees receive at least the same
treatment as nationals in key areas such as employment, education, and access
to welfare.
However, discrepancies in national implementation still persist. For
example, while some states grant refugees indefinite residence permits after five
years, others impose burdensome renewal requirements or administrative
barriers. Legal uncertainty can severely affect the integration prospects of
refugees and undermine their socio-economic stability.
The Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and Employment Equality
Directive (2000/78/EC) offer additional safeguards by prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity in areas such as
housing, employment, and social services. However, studies show that refugees
face considerable challenges in practice, including institutional discrimination,
social marginalization, and barriers to recognition of qualifications. Programs
aimed at facilitating integration—such as language training, vocational
education, and cultural orientation—vary significantly across the EU. The most
successful examples (e.g., Sweden and Germany) typically combine legal
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
154
protection with inclusive policies grounded in human rights and anti-
discrimination principles.
Rise of Nationalist Politics and Restrictive Policies. In recent years, the rise
of nationalist and right-wing populist movements in several EU countries has led
to increasing politicization of migration and asylum issues. Governments in
Hungary, Poland, and Italy have introduced restrictive laws that undermine the
spirit of EU asylum directives and human rights norms.
Hungary’s construction of a border fence and the criminalization of asylum
assistance have prompted multiple infringement proceedings by the European
Commission and condemnation by the ECtHR. Yet, enforcement remains
politically sensitive and slow.
The Rule of Law Crisis and Solidarity Breakdown. The EU’s asylum system
is premised on mutual trust among member states. However, growing
divergence in compliance with fundamental rights and the erosion of judicial
independence in some states (notably Hungary and Poland) have triggered a
rule of law crisis that threatens this trust.
The breakdown of solidarity became particularly evident during the 2015
refugee crisis, when frontline states like Greece and Italy were overwhelmed,
and efforts to relocate asylum seekers under a temporary quota scheme were
largely ignored by other members. The CJEU in Slovakia and Hungary v. Council
(Joined Cases C 643/15 and C 647/15) upheld the legality of this relocation
mechanism, but political resistance rendered it ineffective.
The New Pact on Migration and Asylum. In 2020, the European Commission
proposed a New Pact on Migration and Asylum, aiming to reform the CEAS and
strike a balance between solidarity and responsibility. Key elements include:
• A flexible solidarity mechanism allowing states to choose between
relocation, return sponsorship, or capacity-building;
• A common pre-entry screening process;
• Accelerated border procedures and revised asylum management tools.
While the Pact aims to streamline procedures and enhance cooperation,
human rights organizations have criticized it for prioritizing border control over
legal protection, fearing an erosion of individual procedural safeguards.
Enhancing Judicial Oversight and Accountability. A crucial component of
strengthening refugee rights is ensuring robust judicial oversight. The ECtHR
and CJEU must continue to play a proactive role in scrutinizing national
practices and interpreting EU and ECHR norms in a rights-protective manner.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
155
Further, mechanisms like the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights and national human rights institutions should be empowered to monitor
asylum conditions and address violations in real time. Greater civil society
engagement and legal aid support can also improve access to justice for
refugees.
Conclusion. Refugee rights occupy a complex and evolving position within
the European legal system. While Europe boasts some of the strongest legal
instruments for the protection of fundamental rights, the reality for many
refugees and asylum seekers remains precarious. Legal guarantees are often
undermined by political resistance, inconsistent implementation, and systemic
shortcomings.
This article has demonstrated that the integration of human rights
principles into refugee law—particularly through instruments like the ECHR, the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention—is central
to the European approach. Jurisprudence from the ECtHR and CJEU has
progressively expanded the protective scope of these rights, affirming non-
refoulement, access to justice, humane treatment, and socio-economic
entitlements.
Nonetheless, challenges persist. Pushbacks, arbitrary detention, inadequate
reception conditions, and the rise of nationalist policies continue to strain the
coherence of the Common European Asylum System. The proposed reforms
under the New Pact on Migration and Asylum offer both opportunities and risks,
and their success will largely depend on sustained political will and rigorous
rights-based scrutiny.
Moving forward, the European legal system must reaffirm its commitment
to the foundational values of human dignity, equality, and solidarity. Only
through the full and consistent integration of human rights principles into
refugee law and practice can Europe uphold its international obligations and
moral responsibility toward those fleeing persecution and conflict.
References:
1. Amnesty International. (2020). New pact on migration and asylum: Still failing
to protect human rights. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org
2. Costello, C., & Hancox, E. (2014). The Recast Asylum Procedures Directive: An
Overview. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe.
3. ECRE. (2017). Asylum Information Database – Country Reports.
https://asylumineurope.org
4. European Commission. (2020). New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
156
5. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2019). Migration: Key
fundamental rights concerns. Retrieved from https://fra.europa.eu
6. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2007). The Refugee in International Law
(3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
7. Guild, E., Costello, C., Garlick, M., & Moreno-Lax, V. (2017). Enhancing the
Common European Asylum System and Alternatives to Dublin. European
Parliament Study.
8. Kjaerum, M. (2013). The emerging EU asylum and migration policy. In A. Von
Bogdandy & P. Huber (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A
Commentary (pp. 1239–1258). Hart Publishing.
9. Kochenov, D., & Pech, L. (2015). Monitoring and Enforcement of the Rule of
Law in the EU. European Constitutional Law Review, 11(3), 512–540.
10. Mole, N., & Meredith, C. (2010). Asylum and the European Convention on
Human Rights (2nd ed.). Council of Europe.
11. Moreno-Lax, V. (2017). Accessing Asylum in Europe: Extraterritorial Border
Controls and Refugee Rights under EU Law. Oxford University Press.
12. Peers, S. (2021). EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (4th ed.). Oxford
University Press.
13. UNHCR. (2011). Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for
Determining Refugee Status. Geneva.
