Judgements rendered in the accused’s absence form a special category of criminal judgements that undoubtedly do not provide for the same safeguards that would be in place when a judgement is rendered in the accused’s presence. Nonetheless, provided that strict conditions are adhered to, trials in absentia can be compatible with the accused’s right to be present. This article examines the standards that have been developed under international human rights law, providing for the normative framework, to see to what extent the trials in absentia of foreign terrorist fighters in the Netherlands and Belgium comply therewith. By pointing to analogies and contrasts, this article wishes to contribute to finding answers to this dilemma.

In recent years, migration has been at the centre of European debates and the number of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean remains alarming. To this day, hundreds of people continue to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean on small boats in order to flee conflict zones, persecution or extreme poverty. However, due to the lack of legal alternatives, migrants engage in dangerous journeys and find themselves helpless in the hands of smugglers. This article will address the growing pattern of criminalisation of migration and humanitarian assistance throughout Europe and consider the extent to which national, European and international anti-smuggling laws affect the work of civil society actors.

The inclusion of biometric data in EU border controls reflects a shift from immigration management as an original purpose by making control and identification of individuals a top priority. It also shows a preference for biometrical data as part of the European security strategy. This article elaborates on these so-called ‘EU Smart borders’ and focusses on the different existing central information systems including these data.

In 2015, deadly incidents of migrant smuggling in the Mediterranean were daily covered by everyday newspapers. Empirical research has shown that migrants themselves may be involved in these smuggling operations. If they apply for refugee protection, they may be excluded from refugee status under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention. Article 1F(b) excludes asylum seekers from international protection if serious reasons exist to consider that they have committed serious non-political crimes. This contribution discusses whether migrant smuggling can be considered as such and whether various forms of participation in smuggling operations give rise to individual responsibility and trigger application of article 1F(b).

Ever since the 2015 start of what is now often referred to as the European ‘migration crisis’, European member states have been struggling with one of the key fundaments of the European Union and in particular the Schengen Agreement: the principle of free movement. Whereas this principle entails that people should be able to move freely within the Schengen Area, as a result of the ongoing securitization and politicization of migration, Member States are exploring the different opportunities the Schengen Border Code allows them to monitor intra-Schengen cross-border mobility. In doing so, countries seem to have two options: either to temporarily reintroduce border controls or to – permanently – carry out police or immigration controls in an area around the border. In this article we explore and critically assess the choices various countries have made and what seems to be the position of the European Commission in all this.

At EU level, the use of substantive criminal law as a response to illegal migration is materialised by both the EU legislator and the Member States individually. EU involvement in criminalizing illegal migration takes place in a twofold manner: directly, through harmonization of national legislations, and indirectly, through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). An example of the latter is the case law of the CJEU regarding criminal law sanctions for breaching an entry ban. In this article, we will analyse judgments of the CJEU in the light of crimmigration law and make a distinction between the Member States’ power to classify a breach of an entry ban as an offence and to lay down criminal law sanctions in national legislation, and their power to impose such sanctions.