The use of readmission agreements has sparked a debate on their compatibility with international law, in particular provisions relating to the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers. Turkey is a telling example in this regard, having concluded bilateral agreements with several states such as Syria, Russia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and Nigeria, similar to its readmission agreement with the EU, and negotiating others with China, India, Iran, Iraq, Morocco and Pakistan. Some States on this list are known for their indifference to the human rights of migrants whose situation is illegal. The notion of “any person” is problematic in that it does not distinguish between immigrants who are in an illegal situation in the host country, with the potential to fundamentally undermine the principle of non-refoulement, which aims to protect refugees and asylum-seekers. The European readmission policy does not distinguish between foreigners who are in an illegal situation and whose legal status should be protected and those who are not. The readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey is not an isolated case. The example of Turkey can be applied in the same way to all countries that are negotiating and/or have concluded readmission agreements with the EU. The first criticism concerns the definition of “illegal immigrant” found in all readmission agreements; thereafter, the requested State must take into account any person who does not fulfil or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry or stay applicable in the territory of the requesting State. 1.

Readmission agreements between the EU and a third country replace agreements between an EU Member State and the same country, although this may not be the case for the DK and possibly IE and the UK, as these EU Member States may choose not to participate in the EU agreement in question (opt-in).2. For more information, visit the European Commission`s readmission website. The prevention of the domino effect is considered a norm in customary international law and must also be prevented in the implementation of readmission agreements. In this context, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe confirms: “If the State of return is not the Country of origin, the removal order (readmission) should only be issued if the authorities of the host State are convinced, insofar as the State to which the person is returned will not expel him or her to a third country where he or she would be exposed. to a real risk. [2] However, the text of the EU readmission agreement does not take into account the requirement to prevent the domino effect. .