Belgium has accused Europe’s top courts of overstepping their authority on asylum and immigration, with former Constitutional Court president Marc Bossuyt warning that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) are undermining national sovereignty and tying governments’ hands on migration policy.
The criticism follows a joint letter on May 22 by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni—backed by Austria and other EU leaders—accusing Strasbourg judges of shrinking the democratic space for countries to control their borders.
Bossuyt has gone further. In an eight-page report circulating in Brussels, he called for stricter scrutiny of who sits on Europe’s top courts. He argued that judges with real asylum experience should be prioritised over academics known for pushing “activist” readings of the Human Rights Convention.
“Hardly ever is a judge chosen with direct experience in asylum procedures,” Bossuyt noted, urging governments to speak out more openly against Strasbourg rulings. Criticising international courts, Bossuyt insists, does not threaten the rule of law: “States are the masters of the treaties, and governments their legitimate representatives.”
Bossuyt also accused the CJEU of mirroring Strasbourg’s broadest interpretations, even though the European Convention on Human Rights is not part of EU law. At times, it has gone even further in restricting governments’ powers.
His report proposes limiting judicial intervention to cases where an asylum seeker faces death or imprisonment if returned home. No court involvement should be required if the migrant already has protection in another EU state, if the Dublin rules assign the case elsewhere, or if the claim is repeated without new evidence. In such cases, rejection should be automatic.
