The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to temporarily halt the deportation of a repeatedly convicted Syrian offender has sparked strong concern across security and police circles in Europe. The measure, introduced following an appeal by the United Nations, highlights once again a pressing common challenge: how long can European countries compromise internal security in favour of the rights of perpetrators, especially when internationally active NGOs – often financed by state funds – exert political influence over supranational institutions?
The Austrian case serves here as a concrete example of what is, in fact, a widespread problem affecting all EU member states. The Austrian Ministry of the Interior confirmed at its press conference on 13 August 2025 that the individual concerned is a repeat offender classified as dangerous. Nonetheless, the ECtHR issued an “interim measure” until early September to review the case. In practice, this means: a proven criminally inclined person must remain in Austria – with all associated risks for the public.
A Historical Self-Evidence: Removing Dangerous Persons
Since antiquity, societies have recognised the principle that particularly dangerous individuals must either be permanently detained or removed from the community. In times when states lacked the financial or administrative capacity to provide lifelong care for violent criminals, execution was regarded not as cruelty but as a necessary measure to protect the public. Allowing dangerous offenders to roam freely, expand criminal networks, and burden the community would have been inconceivable.
Modern Europe has abolished the death penalty and, for now, can finance long-term imprisonment and medical care. But the key question remains: how sustainable is this model when terrorist suspects and criminally oriented migrants cannot be deported? EU member states have the right – and duty – to set clear signals. Austria’s practice of consistently punishing and deporting offenders may serve as an example.
Human Rights with Proportion – Why Deportation is Legitimate and Necessary
The overextension of offender rights risks destabilising the entire system of internal security. It is legally and morally questionable to grant convicted criminals the same protections as law-abiding citizens. If this logic were taken to its extreme, prisons themselves would have to be viewed as human rights violations. Yet international law recognises that detention is permissible to maintain public order and prevent serious crime (Article 5, ECHR).
From this it follows:
If detention is compatible with human rights, deportation must equally be recognised as a legitimate and proportionate instrument to protect the public.
The alternative – a return to capital punishment – is not under consideration in Europe. Deportation is therefore the more humane, legally sound solution. UN or ECtHR decisions that block this path disregard the primary obligation of the state: protecting its law-abiding citizens and shielding the most vulnerable from becoming victims of dangerous criminals.
Costs, Risks, and Deterrence
Austria alone carries out more than 13,000 deportations each year, over half of them voluntarily. Yet in cases blocked by international intervention, costs rise sharply – from security escorts and flights to lengthy legal proceedings. Taxpayers rightly question why dangerous offenders should remain at public expense. A consistent deportation policy reduces costs and sends a deterrent signal to potential offenders.
Civil initiatives in Austria have therefore proposed the creation of secure deportation centres, arguing that offenders and illegal residents should not enjoy greater protection than the working population that funds the system.
Arguments That No Longer Fit the Time
The oft-repeated claim that countries such as Syria or Afghanistan are “not safe” can no longer be applied without qualification. Europe itself is increasingly the target of organised crime and terrorism. Many regions of the world, despite internal conflicts, maintain functioning justice systems in line with their own legal traditions. It is neither proportionate nor justifiable to treat foreign offenders differently from European citizens: those who commit crimes must face the consequences.
Protection of the Population as the Highest Duty
The first responsibility of any European state is to safeguard its citizens. Preventing just one serious crime strengthens public security. International institutions that obstruct this task move away from their founding purpose: defending the human rights of all citizens, not just those of perpetrators.
Historical Context and the Creation of the ECHR and ECtHR
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its Court (ECtHR) were created after the Second World War as a response to totalitarianism and mass atrocities. Their regional focus was to strengthen democracy and rule of law within Europe. They were never intended as global mechanisms for migration or asylum disputes.
Deportation Centres as an Alternative to Releasing Dangerous Offenders
Under current EU law, deportation detention generally ends after 18 months, even if danger persists. The result: dangerous offenders are released into society, despite ongoing deportation orders.
As a remedy, closed deportation centres based on judicially ordered preventive measures could serve as a proportionate alternative. These centres would not constitute prisons, as individuals could leave voluntarily if they agreed to return to their home country. Instead, they would function as protective measures, preventing offenders from absconding, re-offending, or radicalising.
Overcoming the 18-Month Limit
Three legal approaches could provide solutions:
- National Model: Establishing a special legal framework for preventive security measures.
- Requalification: Structuring deportation centres as preventive custody rather than deportation detention, thus exempting them from EU limits.
- EU Reform: Amending the EU Returns Directive to allow longer detention in cases of dangerous offenders.
Civil initiatives argue that beginning with the second option would already create a practical, lawful framework while working toward broader EU-wide reforms.
Conclusion
The Austrian case illustrates a broader European dilemma: the tension between international rulings that temporarily halt deportations and the duty of states to protect their citizens. This is not an Austrian problem alone, but a recurring issue in all EU countries that must comply with ECtHR judgments.
Deportation, when applied to dangerous offenders, is not only legitimate but essential. It preserves the rule of law, ensures proportionality compared to harsher historical measures, and safeguards the rights of the majority – those citizens who abide by the law. European governments must therefore seek legal and political avenues to ensure that international mechanisms designed to prevent tyranny and mass atrocities are not repurposed in ways that compromise the very security and justice they were built to protect.
About the Author
Discover more from THE KARDINAL
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
