Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset calls for updates to strengthen human rights protections amid unprecedented migration flows

In recent years, Europe has faced an extraordinary influx of migrants and refugees fleeing conflict, persecution, and economic hardship in regions such as the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia. By early 2025, the number of arrivals reaching European shores had exceeded 2 million over the previous three years, straining reception facilities, border controls, and social services across the continent. This unprecedented situation has reignited debates about the adequacy of existing legal frameworks to safeguard the fundamental rights of asylum seekers while enabling member states to manage migratory pressures effectively. Against this backdrop, Secretary General Alain Berset of the Council of Europe has proposed a comprehensive reform of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) aimed at balancing these competing imperatives.

The European Convention on Human Rights, established in 1950 and entering into force in 1953, is a cornerstone of the post-World War II human rights architecture. It enshrined key civil and political protections, such as the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, and the right to respect for private and family life. Member states ratifying the Convention are subject to oversight by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, to which individuals can bring claims alleging violations of their rights. Over the decades, the ECHR has become a vital instrument for protecting vulnerable populations, including migrants and refugees, ensuring they are not subjected to collective expulsions or returned to countries where they face a real risk of persecution.

However, the surge in migration has placed enormous strain on the Convention’s enforcement mechanisms. The ECtHR has seen a dramatic rise in applications related to immigration, asylum, and detention conditions. In 2024 alone, more than 12,000 new complaints concerning migratory issues were lodged, representing a 40% increase compared to 2020. Many of these cases involve appeals against deportation orders, challenges to detention practices, and claims of inhumane living conditions in reception centers. This caseload surge has led to lengthy backlogs—some applications remain pending for over two years—raising concerns about access to timely justice. Berset argues that without reform, the Convention risks losing credibility among member states overwhelmed by legal obligations they perceive as unenforceable.

Berset’s reform proposal focuses on several key elements. First, he calls for a revision of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) to clarify the threshold for establishing violations in the context of reception conditions. While acknowledging the absolute nature of Article 3, he suggests more precise guidelines to help states distinguish between temporary infrastructural shortcomings and systematic mistreatment. Second, the proposal recommends adjustments to Article 34, which governs individual applications to the Court. He proposes stricter admissibility criteria, including requiring applicants to exhaust all effective domestic remedies and demonstrating a prima facie case of a serious human rights violation. The intention is to reduce the number of fully admissible cases, allowing the Court to focus on the most egregious violations.

Another critical aspect of the proposal is the introduction of a temporary derogation clause under Article 15 (derogation in time of emergency) specifically tailored to migratory crises. While Article 15 allows states to derogate from certain rights during a declared emergency, Berset suggests establishing clear procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. For instance, any derogation related to migration would need approval by a supermajority of the Committee of Ministers and be limited to a maximum period of six months, renewable only upon renewed justification. Additionally, he proposes the deployment of a specialized “Rapid Response Unit” within the Council of Europe to assist states in implementing reception standards and monitoring compliance in real time, aiming to deter conditions that could lead to Article 3 violations.

The proposal has elicited diverse reactions among the 47 Council of Europe member states. Southern European countries such as Italy and Greece, which continue to receive the highest number of sea arrivals, have welcomed Berset’s call for clearer guidelines and practical support, arguing that current ambiguities expose them to ECtHR rulings that they cannot implement due to resource constraints. Germany and France, while supportive of the need for procedural efficiency, have raised concerns about potentially weakening fundamental rights under the guise of admissibility reforms. On the other hand, Eastern European states, notably Hungary and Poland, have expressed interest in the temporary derogation mechanism as a tool to manage their own stricter national asylum policies, sparking fears that derogations might be used to justify overly restrictive measures.

Human rights organizations have voiced strong objections to parts of the proposal. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch argue that tightening admissibility criteria could undermine access to justice for vulnerable individuals, effectively denying them a forum to challenge life-threatening deportations. They also warn that redefining Article 3 thresholds may lead to a lowering of standards, exposing asylum seekers to substandard living conditions. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) has urged for any reforms to strengthen, rather than weaken, procedural safeguards, emphasizing the principle of non-refoulement as inviolable. To address these concerns, Berset has invited civil society stakeholders to participate in a series of regional consultations scheduled throughout 2025, aiming to strike a balance between state capacities and human rights obligations.

Experts in international law have noted both the potential benefits and pitfalls of Berset’s initiative. Professor Elena Rodríguez of the University of Barcelona suggests that clearer admissibility criteria could streamline the ECtHR’s workflow, enabling the Court to adjudicate severe cases more rapidly. She also acknowledges that a specialized support unit might provide technical assistance that many member states lack. However, she cautions that derogation provisions, if overused, could erode the universal character of the Convention. Dr. Marko Petrovic of the European Human Rights Institute highlights the risk that politicization of migration issues could drive states to push for reforms more focused on burden-sharing than on upholding fundamental rights. He stresses the need for a strong oversight mechanism to ensure that any derogations are strictly temporary and proportionate.

Looking ahead, the path to reform will involve multiple stages. In June 2025, the Committee of Ministers is expected to debate Berset’s proposal and instruct the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) to draft specific amendments. The drafting phase is likely to take several months, followed by a period of consultation with national parliaments, legal experts, and civil society groups. If an amended text is agreed upon by the Committee of Ministers, it will then be opened for signature and ratification by member states. Given the Convention’s amendment procedure, changes require at least two-thirds of member states to ratify; thus, widespread consensus is necessary. Meanwhile, Berset has pledged that the Rapid Response Unit will begin piloting in Greece and Italy by late 2025, offering targeted support to address winterization of reception centers and improve data-sharing mechanisms with national authorities.

The push to reform the European Convention on Human Rights underscores the complex interplay between national sovereignty, regional cooperation, and the universal protection of human rights. As migration continues to be a defining challenge for Europe, the success of this initiative will hinge on the ability to balance legitimate security and administrative concerns with the imperative to safeguard the dignity and rights of every individual. Should Berset’s proposal yield a streamlined, yet robust, Convention, it could serve as a model for other regions grappling with similar migratory pressures. Conversely, failure to achieve consensus risks deepening divides among member states and undermining the Convention’s authority. In either scenario, the coming months will be critical for determining the future trajectory of human rights protection in Europe.