1

France deported a terrorist belonging to the Islamic State to his country of origin, Tunisia.

2

The man is complaining to the European Court of Human Rights that this will make it harder for him to maintain contact with his family in Germany. He also points to the excessive severity of his sentence — for his crimes, he was sentenced to a whole life term without parole, a sentence the Court itself considers absolutely impermissible.

3

The Ordo Iuris Institute has joined the proceedings, recalling states’ traditional right to expel foreign nationals who pose a threat to national security.

4

The case is precedent-setting and forms part of a broader problem — the excessively rigorous requirements the ECtHR imposes on states before they may expel a foreign national. This year, 46 member states adopted the Chisinau Declaration, calling on the Court to soften its case law in light of extraordinary challenges such as mass immigration, terrorism, and rising crime.

Facts of the Case

The case concerns a Tunisian national, a second-generation immigrant born in Germany. In 2015, at the age of 25, he emigrated to Syria, where he joined the Islamic State (ISIS). For numerous terrorism-related offenses, he was sentenced in Tunisia to a combined total of 132 years’ imprisonment. The man then went to France, where he took part in preparing a terrorist attack. In 2019, he was arrested by French police, and in 2023 was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. In 2025, he was deported to Tunisia. That same year, he lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the French Republic had violated his right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR), his right to family life (Article 8 of the ECHR), his right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR), and his right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the ECHR).

The applicant argues that the decision to deport him was incompatible with the Convention because, in Tunisia, he will be forced to serve what amounts to a de facto whole life sentence with no possibility of applying for early release — which, under the Strasbourg Court’s case law, constitutes a form of impermissible ill-treatment. The applicant also fears he could be sentenced to death, a punishment absolutely prohibited by the Council of Europe. The man further points out that his deportation has harmed his family life, since his partner, child, and mother live in Germany. In addition, the applicant raises a number of procedural complaints concerning the conduct of his removal from France, intended to show that he was denied a fair judicial process.

Ordo Iuris’s Position as Amicus Curiae

With the consent of the President of Section V of the ECtHR, the Ordo Iuris Institute joined the proceedings in this case as amicus curiae. In its legal opinion, the Institute recalls that international law guarantees states a discretionary right to expel foreign nationals from their territory who pose a threat to national security. This right is formally recognized by the Strasbourg Court, but it is subject to numerous conditions. Over the years, the ECtHR’s case law has created many rigorous requirements that a state must satisfy before it may expel anyone from its territory. In particular, the Court’s case law rules out deporting a foreign national to countries that do not meet the standards in force within the Council of Europe, even where those countries are not themselves members of it. For example, an immigrant may not be deported to a country where he risks the death penalty, a whole life sentence without parole, or where he would not be guaranteed adequate space and conditions in a prison cell consistent with European standards. In practice, most states outside the Council of Europe do not guarantee such standards, which — from the ECtHR’s standpoint — automatically rules out deporting immigrants to them. What is more, the Court’s case law to date has held that even the commission of a serious offense by an immigrant is not sufficient grounds for his expulsion, particularly if it would mean cutting him off from his family.

All of this significantly limits a state’s ability to protect its society from dangerous immigrants. That is why, in its opinion, the Institute asked the Court to consider developing its case law on immigration matters in a way that takes account of new challenges, including mass immigration, terrorism, and rising crime among certain national minorities.

Governments’ Appeal for a Change in Case Law

The Institute also pointed out that the governments of member states themselves have spoken out about the problem of the ECtHR’s excessively rigorous case law in immigration matters. In a 2025 statement, 27 prime ministers noted that national authorities have a duty to secure their peoples’ right to live in peace and security, including through effective border protection. The heads of government called on the Court to give greater weight, in its case law, to the new challenges they face, to the principle of subsidiarity, and to the principle of “democracy capable of defending itself” against threats such as terrorism. In 2026, the presidents and prime ministers of all 46 Council of Europe member states adopted the Chisinau Declaration, pointing to the need to give national authorities greater latitude in assessing threats to national security, and also underscoring the permissibility of expelling an immigrant

A date for the ECtHR’s judgment has not yet been announced. The Ordo Iuris Institute will monitor the case and report on developments on an ongoing basis.

Case B. v. France, application no. 12200/25.

Translated using Claude.ai

See also:

Source of cover photo: iStock