Check against delivery - Speech by Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Thank you, Dr Johnson.

Let me just say at the outset how pleased I am to be here in Liverpool for this Summer School on the Law of the Council of Europe.

The University of Liverpool has long been connected to our work — not least through Lord McNair, once Vice-Chancellor here, and the very first President of the European Court of Human Rights.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Colleagues, friends,

• In just the first half of this year, the number of people crossing the Channel reached a record — earlier than ever before.
• In response to rising pressure, temporary border controls have reappeared between long-standing neighbours.
• Some countries have begun scaling back support for sea rescues of migrants.
• Across several European countries, new legislative proposals have emerged that seek to make assistance to undocumented migrants a crime.

It is in this context that nine Council of Europe member States recently called for a “new and open-minded conversation” about how the European Court of Human Rights interprets the European Convention on Human Rights, especially in the field of migration.

***

I would argue that what we are facing today is not just a migration crisis, but a crisis of confidence — in rules, in institutions, and in the very idea of shared responsibility.

And that is precisely the role of the Court in times like these:

To act as a steady compass when politics grow turbulent and trust runs thin.

***

I believe we all can agree that these are complex challenges.

They require clarity about what the Court is — and what it is not.

The Court is not a political body.

It does not set migration policy.

It does not overrule parliaments.

And it most certainly does not operate in a vacuum.

It intervenes only after domestic remedies have been exhausted — a core element of the principle of subsidiarity.

It is a judicial authority, created by the very member States now calling for its reform, entrusted with an essential mission:

To ensure that European governments respect the rights they have promised to protect.

***

As the new President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mattias Guyomar, made clear in a recent interview:

The Convention does not replace national legal frameworks.

It applies to them without imposing any uniform legal model — but as a living instrument, adapted to the times through dynamic interpretation.

And we must not forget:

This Court has been ruling on migration issues for over 35 years.

It has developed a coherent and cautious jurisprudence.

Not to override states, but to support them, based on the principle of subsidiarity and in coordination with broader international norms.

***

Now, some claim that the Court has overreached — that it hampers effective migration control.

So let us look at the facts.

• Since 2016, the Court has ruled on over 400,000 cases.
• Fewer than 300 concerned violations in the context of immigration. That is less than 0.1%.
• As for the execution of judgments: out of more than 4,000 cases pending before the Committee of Ministers, only 66 concern direct expulsions. That is around 1.5%.

And keep in mind that these numbers do not include broader issues that affect migrants — from detention conditions to ill-treatment at borders and the failure to investigate abuses.

This is not judicial activism. If anything, it is restraint.

***

Don’t misunderstand me, this is not to say that migration challenges are not real.

We see them:

• In the growing strain on reception systems, especially for unaccompanied children.
• In emergency measures introduced at borders.
• And in efforts to respond to the instrumentalisation of migration as a tool of political pressure.

They test not only border policies, but our resolve to uphold rights and principles — even under severe strain.

States have the obvious right to control the entry, residence, and expulsion of non-nationals.

But this right is not without limits.

• No person should be sent to a country where they face torture or the death penalty. These are non-derogatory principles where there can be no compromise.
• Collective deportations are not admissible.
• Deprivation of liberty must be legal.

These are not luxuries.

They are legal obligations — under the European Convention on Human Rights, and under wider international law.

Many of these standards are also reflected — sometimes more strictly — in the legal instruments of the European Union, the United Nations, and others.

Amending the Convention would certainly not remove these obligations.

***

The level of protection for migrants remains defined by binding legal instruments.

That is why we, the Council of Europe, help member States make sure their migration laws and policies meet human rights standards that are our job

• For instance, we have assessed new national legislation to ensure any restrictive measures remain exceptional and in line with international law.
• In addition, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has raised concerns about pushbacks and emergency border controls in several regions, and intervened in Strasbourg in key cases regarding alleged summary returns.
• In parallel, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has issued detailed standards to prevent ill-treatment at borders.

***

So dear friends, the Convention — and the Court — must not become scapegoats.

The real challenge is the scale and complexity of migration itself — shaped by war, climate, persecution, and poverty.

But the Council of Europe has not stood still.

Far from it.

• Through our Action Plan on Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Migration and Asylum, we are helping States design policies that are both effective and rights-based.
• In line with the 2023 Reykjavik Declaration, our member States have committed to uphold a shared vision of migration governance — rooted in Council of Europe values and built over more than seventy years of law and cooperation.
• With tools like the European Qualifications Passport for Refugees — now recognised by UNESCO and supported by 24 countries, including the UK — we are helping to rebuild lives, not just manage arrivals.
• At the local level, the Council of Europe projects have helped communities respond to war-related migration by expanding access to services, legal protection, and social support — particularly for women and children.
• We are also working through our Steering Committee on Human Rights to clarify one of the most difficult questions in today’s migration debate: the safe third country concept. That includes complex issues like returns to countries of transit, denial of entry at borders, offshore processing, and return hubs.
• We are also working on the setting up of a committee dedicated to work on migration, where states will have a political forum to discuss these issues openly and in detail.

And of course, in several member States, the Court’s judgments have led to tangible reforms — from improving asylum procedures to establishing border monitoring mechanisms.

You see that when the Court speaks, States listen. Change actually happens.

***

Dear colleagues and friends,

The concerns of the governments that signed the open letter — and those who have joined them since — must be heard.

But there are appropriate venues for this dialogue: the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly, and our intergovernmental working groups.

Let that be the beginning of a sincere, informed conversation — not the start of a political blame game taking place in radio and TV channels or exclusively on social media!

The Convention is a shared promise — 75 years strong — that human dignity matters, even when it is challenging and difficult.

I would even say: especially when it is difficult.

You see that this is what makes Europe different.

This is what binds us together

And this is what the European Court of Human Rights protects.

***

By the way, this week, the Court will speak to the urgent need for accountability in a world where we have reached unprecedented levels of impunity.

On Thursday 9 July, the Court will deliver its ruling in a major inter-state case covering the entire conflict in Ukraine since 2014 — including the annexation of Crimea, the downing of Flight MH17, and the full-scale invasion launched in 2022.

This judgment will not only speak to Ukraine.

It will speak to Europe — and to the world.

Because today, the European Court of Human Rights is the only international court adjudicating violations of human rights in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

***

Now more than ever, the Court is what Pierre-Henri Teitgen — one of the founding fathers of the Convention — called “the conscience we all need.”

A conscience that stands firm through political storms, defends rights even in times of war, and stays true to the legal order our nations built together.

And that is what the Council of Europe defends.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what makes this Court our steady compass in turbulent times.

Thank you.