Download the FAQ in PDF  - 12 February 2026

The Council of Europe Division on Migration and Refugees, has issued a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document explaining how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to migration-related issues.

According to the document, applications concerning non-nationals represent only about two per cent of all cases processed by the European Court of Human Rights over the past decade, with fewer than 450 findings of violations. It is underlined that states have the right to control the entry and stay of non-nationals, provided such measures respect fundamental protections such as the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3).

The text also highlights the principle of “margin of appreciation” developed by the European Court, under which national authorities are best placed to assess domestic circumstances and balance individual rights against the public interest. When national decisions are well reasoned and consider all relevant factors, the Court generally defers to them.

As regards interim measures, while the Court may apply them exceptionally to suspend removals of non-nationals, the vast majority of such requests are rejected. It also recognises the challenges faced by states especially in combating crime and terrorism, affirming that expulsions of serious offenders may be compatible with the Convention when justified and proportionate.

It is concluded that the Court’s caselaw seeks to uphold human rights protections while respecting states’ sovereign right to manage migration in line with international law.

 Does the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protect migrants?

The European Convention on Human Rights protects the rights and freedoms of everyone within the jurisdiction of a Council of Europe member state, whether they are nationals of that country or not.

The Convention does not contain a right to asylum, and the European Court of Human Rights does not examine asylum applications. However, some articles of the Convention are relevant to migration.

For example, Article 3 means that states cannot remove someone to another country where they face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 8 of the Convention, covering the right to private and family life, means that close family members can only be separated if there are important reasons for doing so.

However, some rights protected by the Convention do not apply in the context of migration.

For example, states can detain non-nationals for the purpose of immigration control, despite Article 5 of the Convention guaranteeing the right to liberty and security.

Furthermore, Article 6 (right to a fair trial) does not apply to disputes over the entry, residence or removal of non-nationals, or to the granting of asylum or deportation.

 How often does the European Court of Human Rights rule in favour of migrants?

The Court has processed over 430,000 applications in the past ten years. Less than 2% of those applications (7,387) related to immigration.

Of the 7,387 immigration-related applications, over 92% (6,861) were dismissed by the Court. Only around 450 applications related to immigration – that is, around one in a thousand of the total number of applications dealt with by the Court – led to the Court finding a human rights violation.

Of the 53,194 applications pending before the Court on 1 January 2026, only 870 (around 1.5%) relate to immigration.

 Does the Convention stop states from controlling their borders?

One of the guiding principles underlined by the Court is that states have the right to control the entry of non-nationals into their territory, in line with international law.

The Court stresses that the Convention should generally be applied according to national circumstances, which national authorities are best placed to assess and decide upon.

This principle, known as the “margin of appreciation”, was developed by the Court in its judgments and then added to the text of the Convention by Council of Europe governments following a conference in Brighton, in the United Kingdom, in 2012.

This means that the Court will look at national decision-making processes and generally support them, as long as the authorities involved – including courts – have taken into account the different factors or interests involved and taken well-explained decisions.

For example, the Court recently backed a decision by the Spanish authorities to deny a residence permit to a Bolivian man who had fathered a child in Spain but failed to prove that he could support himself.

Would leaving the Convention mean states no longer had international legal obligations concerning refugees and asylum seekers?

No. All Council of Europe member states are also bound by other international legal agreements in this area, including the UN refugee convention and the UN convention against torture, both of which prohibit people being returned to a territory where their life, physical integrity or freedom would be threatened.

Is it true that the European Court of Human Rights puts the rights of migrants first, to the detriment of local people?

No. The Court has consistently acknowledged the difficulties that states face in combatting crime, including terrorism, underlining that states must be allowed to deport non-nationals they consider to be threats to national security.

The Court has also backed state decisions to deport serious criminals, even when they have stronger ties to their host country than their country of origin – as long as the different interests involved have been properly weighed up by the state concerned.

In a recent case concerning Denmark, for example, the Court found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning a man convicted of serious drug offences who was subject to expulsion despite having lived in the country for more than 34 years.

The Court considered that the Danish authorities had provided relevant and sufficient reasons for to deportation, despite its impact on the man’s private and family life.

 Does the European Court of Human Rights regularly stop migrants being deported?

Under its Rule 39, and in exceptional circumstances, the Court can grant “interim measures” indicating that a state should not expel people in order to prevent possible serious and irreversible violations of their human rights. However, the vast majority of requests for such interim measures are rejected by the Court (see the figures below).

Rule 39 requests received by the European Court of Human Rights in 2023-2025

Source https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/stats_art_39_02_eng

This explainer draws on the exhaustive and authoritative case-law Guides produced by the Registry of the ECtHR

• Guide on Immigration
• Guide on Individual applications and Admissibility criteria
• Guide on Article 5 - Right to liberty and security
• Guide on Article 6 Civil - Right to a fair trial
• Guide on Article 6 Criminal - Right to a fair trial
• Guide on Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

and in the recently released thematic factsheet “Focus on Immigration” and does not bind the Council of Europe or the ECtHR.