Adopted on Friday 15 May in Chișinău at the 135th Session of the Committee of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member states of the Council of Europe, the political declaration on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of migration clarifies the points of view of the governments of the 46 member states of the organisation, without imposing anything on the Strasbourg judges, but encouraging them to comply with it.
This is the culmination of a process sought by Alain Berset, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, to bring back within the organisation itself the debate launched in May 2025 by the open letter from Italy and Denmark, supported by seven EU Member States, calling into question the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which placed “too many limits on the ability of States to decide whom to expel from their territory”.
Organised in response to this crisis, a first meeting of ministers from the 46 member states of the Council of Europe was held in December 2025 and initiated the work that led to the joint political declaration adopted in Chișinău.
This text reaffirms “the independence of the European Court of Human Rights (...) and the integrity of the Convention” – an essential preamble in terms of the independence of the judicial system – as well as the prohibition of torture and the principle of “non-discrimination”.
With regard to migration in particular, the declaration underlines the complexity of the challenges facing certain member states and the risk that an inadequate response would represent for the Convention system.
It recognises the right of states to exercise sovereign control over the entry and residence of foreign nationals and their duty to protect their borders in compliance with the Convention.
In addition, two articles of the Convention have been developed in favour of a national assessment.
Firstly, Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. While the prohibition of torture remains absolute, with regard to inhuman and degrading treatment, the declaration introduces “the assessment of the minimum level of severity”, which would not allow expulsion to be prevented on the grounds that the quality of health care is inferior in the State to which the person is being returned.
Article 8, on respect for private and family life, is also addressed.
Frequently used to prevent expulsion, its application is left to the national authorities, who are considered to be “better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions”.
Another sensitive point for countries like Poland and the Baltic States is the instrumentalisation of migration by Russia and Belarus.
Having opted for pushback, they are faced with applications from asylum seekers who have turned to the European Court of Human Rights.
A month before the judgement, expected in June, the ministerial declaration asks judges to recall that “when assessing the compliance of State authorities with their obligations, the concrete context in which they act forms part of the overall assessment required under the Convention”.
The political pressure on judges is very real here.
Link to the political declaration: https://aeur.eu/f/ly2 (Original version in French by Véronique Leblanc)