HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

The European Court of Human Rights ( hereafter “the ECtHR” ) has dealt in the past with states excluding parts of their territory, such as transit zones at airports, from the international court’s jurisdiction thus applying different legal regime to the persons trying to cross borders, in an authorised or unauthorised manner, then to the persons even illegally staying within the territory. In a known case, Amuur v. France 19 , France claimed that an international zone at the airport is not under French jurisdiction because of its extraterritorial status. However, this argument has been dismissed by the ECtHR. 20 Later on, France adopted the Law on the Waiting Zones 21 establishing the legal fiction of non-entry rather than extraterritoriality. 22 From 2015 to 2020 23 , Hungary maintained so-called transit zones at its southern frontiers with Serbia where the legal fiction of non-entry as presented in the paragraphs above fully went into force. To quote the then Justice minister Laszlo Trocsanyi: “ While it is located in the territory of the given state, the entry into the transit zone does not qualify, in immigration terms, as an entry into that state ”. 24 The legal fiction of non-entry is commonly used in the field of asylum procedures. Several Member States (such as France, Germany, or Austria) have in their domestic law established that during the asylum procedure, asylum-seekers are not legally within their territory. 25 Only after the adoption of The New Pact on Migration and Asylum is this fiction implemented on the European level. All ways of creating space 19 Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, Application no. 19776/92 [online]. [cit. 2024-08-15]. Available at: https:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Amuur%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57988%22]}. 20 Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, Application no. 19776/92 [online]. Para. 52 [cit. 2024-08-15]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Amuur%22],%22itemid%22: [%22001-57988%22]}. 21 Loi n° 92-190 du 26 février 1992 portant modification de l’ordonnance n° 45-2658 du 2 novembre 1945 modifiée, relative aux conditions d’entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France [online]. [cit. 2024 08-15]. Available at: Loi n° 92-190 du 26 février 1992 portant modification de l’ordonnance n° 45 2658 du 2 novembre 1945 modifiée, relative aux conditions d’entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France. – Légifrance (legifrance.gouv.fr). 22 RONDINE, Francesca. Between physical and legal borders: the fiction of non-entry and its impact on fundamental rights of migrants at the borders between EU law and the ECHR. In: Centre Charles De Visscher pour le droit international et européen . Louvain-La-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain [online]. [cit. 2024-08-15]. Available at: https://uclouvain.be/fr/instituts-recherche/juri/cedie/ actualites/rondineaout2022.html. 23 Hungary: Abolishment of Transit Zone Following CJEU Ruling. In: ECRE Weekly Bulletin . [online]. 2020 [cit. 2025-03-19]. Available at: https://mailchi.mp/ecre/ecre-weekly-bulletin-22052020#Hungary:%20 Abolishment%20of%20Transit%20Zone%20Following%20CJEU%20Ruling. 24 ROBINSON, Matt a SZAKACS, Gergely. Hungary’s ‘transit’ zones will send refugees on a U-turn . Reuters [online]. [cit. 2025-02-23]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/hungary-s-transit zones-will-send-refugees-on-a-u-turn-idUSKCN0R91XW/. 25 MOUZOURAKIS, Minos a POLLET, Kris. Boundaries of liberty: Asylum and de facto detention in Europe. In: Asylum Information Database. Belgium: European Council on Refugees and Exiles [online]. 2017, p. 17 [cit. 2025-02-23]. Available at: https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ boundariesliberty.pdf.

66