AB İltica Yönetişiminde Bir Dönüm Noktası: Alace ve Canpelli Kararı Sonrasında Yetki ve Haklar

Abstract

Bu makale, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın Alace and Canpelli kararının (Birleştirilmiş Davalar C-758/24 ve C-759/24) Avrupa Birliği içinde ülke dışı sığınma prosedürlerinin hukuki çerçevesini nasıl yeniden şekillendirdiğini incelemektedir. Denizde kurtarılan sığınmacıların sığınma başvurularının İtalya’nın Arnavutluk ile yürüttüğü offshore iş birliği kapsamında işleme alınması ve gözaltında tutulması uygulamasından hareketle, makale güvenli menşe ülke kavramının ve hızlandırılmış sınır prosedürlerinin—ulusal mevzuatta düzenlenmiş olsa dahi—temel hak güvencelerini ortadan kaldıramayacağını savunmaktadır. Alace and Canpelli kararı, güvenli menşe ülke belirlemelerinin tam ve ex nunc yargısal denetime tabi olduğunu ve başvuranlar ile mahkemelerin, güvenli ülke varsayımının dayandığı ülke-menşeli bilgi kaynaklarına erişiminin sağlanması gerektiğini teyit etmektedir. Bu içtihat, AİHM’nin geri gönderme yasağı, keyfi gözaltı ve etkili başvuru hakkına ilişkin kararları—Saadi/Birleşik Krallık ve S.H./Malta dâhil—ile birlikte okunduğunda, İtalya–Arnavutluk anlaşması gibi ülke toprakları dışı modellerin AB hukuku, AİHS ve 1951 Mülteci Sözleşmesi ile bağdaşmayan hesap verebilirlik boşlukları ve zincir refoulement riskleri doğurduğu ortaya çıkmaktadır. Makale, bu tür offshore düzenlemelerin koruma sorumluluklarını paylaşmak yerine başka yere kaydırdığını ve AB’nin çevre bölgelerinde hukuken göç yönetişiminde gri bir alan biçimini normalleştirdiğini ileri sürmektedir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, Alace and Canpelli’nin üye devletlerin dışsallaştırma politikalarını yargısal denetimden yalıtma kapasitesini önemli ölçüde sınırladığını, ancak ülke dışı alanların hakların zayıfladığı mekânlara dönüşmesini önlemek için daha güçlü doktrinsel ve kurumsal güvencelere ihtiyaç duyulduğunu savunmaktadır .

Keywords

• ülke dışı sığınma prosedürleri
• güvenli menşe ülke
• hızlandırılımış sınır prosedürleri
• yargısal denetim
• İtalya-Arnavutluk anlaşması

A Turning Point for EU Asylum Governance: Jurisdiction and Rights After Alace and Canpelli Case

Abstract

This article examines how the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment in Alace and Canpelli (Joined Cases C-758/24 and C-759/24) reshapes the legal parameters of extraterritorial asylum processing within the European Union. Building on Italy’s offshore cooperation with Albania for the processing and detention of asylum seekers intercepted at sea, the article argues that the safe country of origin concept and the use of accelerated border procedures cannot neutralise fundamental rights guarantees, even when codified in domestic legislation. The Alace and Canpelli judgment confirms that designations of safe countries of origin are subject to full and ex nunc judicial review and that applicants and courts must have access to the underlying country-of-origin information sources on which legislative presumptions of safety are based. Reading this jurisprudence together with ECtHR case law on non-refoulement, arbitrary detention and effective remedies—including Saadi v United Kingdom and S.H. v Malta—the article shows that extraterritorial schemes such as the Italy–Albania agreement risk producing “accountability gaps” and chain refoulement in violation of EU law, the ECHR and the 1951 Refugee Convention. It contends that offshore processing arrangements displace, rather than share, protection responsibilities and normalise legally opaque forms of migration governance at the EU’s periphery. The article concludes that Alace and Canpelli sets important limits on Member States’ ability to insulate externalisation policies from judicial scrutiny, but that stronger doctrinal and institutional safeguards are needed to prevent the transformation of extraterritorial territories into spaces of diminished rights.

Keywords

• extraterritorial asylum processing
• safe country of origin
• accelerated border procedures
• judicial review
• Italy-Albany agreement

References

1. Amnesty International, Italy–Albania Agreement: A Dangerous Precedent (2024) EUR30/7102/2024 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/7102/2024/en/ accessed 10 September 2025.
2. Amnesty International, ‘The Italy–Albania Agreement on Migration: Pushing Boundaries, Threatening Rights’ (19 January 2024) https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/7587/2024/en/ accessed 4 August 2025.
3. Anker D, ‘The US Border, Migration and Human Rights’ (2018) 30(1), International Journal of Refugee Law 1.
4. ASGI (Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione), Legal Opinion on the Italy–Albania Agreement (2024) https://www.asgi.it accessed 5 August 2025.
5. Broerse I, The Italy–Albania Agreement: Externalising Asylum Procedures in Violation of Human Rights (ACMRL Migration Law Series No 26, 2024) https://doi.org/10.71881/51abe5cb-
6. Carrera S and Vosyliūtė L, EU External Migration Policies: A Comparative Perspective (CEPS 2019).
7. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/391.
8. CJEU, Alace and Canpelli v Italy (Joined Cases C-758/24 and C-759/24, Judgment of 1 (August 2025).

9. CJEU, C.V. v Ministerstvo vnitra (Case C-63/15, Judgment of 18 December 2015).
10. CJEU, M. Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Case C-69/10, Judgment of 28 July 2011).
11. Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons (Qualification Directive).
12. Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, OJ L 180/60.
13. Directive 2013/32/EU, Annex I — List of Safe Countries of Origin, OJ L 180/60.
14. ECRE, ECRE Comments on the Italy–Albania Protocol: Legal and Human Rights Concerns (2023) https://ecre.org/ecre-comments-on-the-italy-albania-protocol-legal-and-human-rights- concerns/accessed 4 September 2025.
15. ECtHR, D.L. v Austria (Application no 34999/16, Judgment of 7 December 2017).
16. ECtHR, F.G. v Sweden (Application no 43657/11, Judgment of 23 March 2016).
17. ECtHR, Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhin] v France (Application no 25389/05, Judgment of 26 April 2007).
18. ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy (Application no 27765/09, GC, Judgment of 23 February 2012).
19. ECtHR, Interim Measures in the Context of Rwanda Removals (Application no 13156/22, June2022).
20. ECtHR, Jabari v Turkey (Application no 40035/98, Judgment of 11 July 2000).
21. ECtHR, M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (Application no 30696/09, Judgment of 21 January 2011).
22. ECtHR, Saadi v United Kingdom (Application no 13229/03, Judgment of 29 January 2008). ECtHR, S.H. v Malta (Application no 37241/21, Judgment of 20 December 2022).
23. ECtHR, Sharifi and Others v Italy and Greece (Application no 16643/09, Judgment of 21 October 2014).
24. ECtHR, Xhavara and Others v Italy and Albania (Application no 39473/98, Decision of 10 January 2001).
25. European Commission, New Pact on Migration and Asylum COM (2020) 609 final. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on Asylum Procedures COM (2020) 611 final.
26. European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 on Asylum and Migration Procedures (entered into force 11 June 2024).
27. Giuffré M, ‘Outsourcing Protection? Legal Implications of the Italy–Albania Model’ (2024), 36(1) International Journal of Refugee Law 1–25.
28. Goodwin-Gill GS and McAdam J, The Refugee in International Law (3rd edn, OUP 2007) 386.
29. Government of Italy and Government of Albania, Agreement on Cooperation in Migration and Asylum Management (signed November 2023, ratified 2024).
30. Government of Italy and Government of Albania, Protocol on Strengthening Cooperation in Migration Matters (signed 6 November 2023).
31. Gleeson M, offshore: Behind the Wire on Manus and Nauru (NewSouth 2016).
32. Human Rights Watch, ‘Italy–Albania Asylum Pact Threatens Rights’ (10 November 2023) https://www.hrw.org.
33. Italian Ministry of the Interior, ‘Press Release on Albania Agreement Implementation’, (November 2023) https://www.interno.gov.it.
34. Marzagalli S, ‘Access to Justice for Asylum Seekers in Italy’ (2020) 22(1) European Journal of Migration and Law 35–57.
35. Moreno-Lax V, ‘The Architecture of Functional Jurisdiction: Unpacking Contactless Control’, (2020) 21(3) German Law Journal 385.
36. United Nations General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951).
37. United Nations Treaty Collection, Status of Treaties: 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, https://treaties.un.org accessed 4 August 2025.
38. UNHCR, Observations on the Italy–Albania Agreement on Migration Cooperation (2024), https://www.unhcr.org accessed 4 September 2025.