While we have often shown that the EU is only a NATO checkpoint, this is illustrated for the first time by a decision of the Court of Justice of Luxembourg. According to it, the EU cannot return migrants awaiting an asylum decision to third countries whose legal borders do not correspond to their real borders. It follows that Italy cannot transfer Egyptian and Bengali migrants to detention centres in Albania. All this in anticipation of a mass exodus of Moldovans to justify a war in Transnistria.

On October 18, an Italian court invalidated the possibility of transiting through a third country twelve Bengali and Egyptian migrants who had been rescued at sea and were claiming the right to asylum. Politically, this decision seems to bring down the scaffolding imagined by Boris Johnson for the relocation of migrants. The British wanted to send them thousands of kilometers away, to Rwanda, the Italians were "content" to transport them a few dozen kilometers away, to Albania.

The court based its decision on a judgment of October 4, 2024, not of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), known as the "Strasbourg Court", which is part of the Council of Europe, but of the Court of Justice of the European Union, known as the "Luxembourg Court", which the United Kingdom no longer recognizes. This distinction may seem pointless to many. However, it reveals that the migration issue, until now dominated by the "progressive" thinking of the ECHR judges, financed by George Soros, is now subject to another logic.

The ECHR stated that migrants must be able to benefit from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CSDHLF) when the courts of the continent examine their case. Consequently, it refused to allow people rescued at sea to be disembarked at the nearest port as indicated by the law of the sea, but made it obligatory to take them in transit in the EU. Thus it considers their transit through Rwanda as illegitimate, but cannot oppose their transit through Albania, which has signed this Convention.

The Court of Justice of the EU does not rule on human rights issues. It simply verifies the application of EU directives [1]. It is an administrative court. However, Directive 2013/32, which sets out the procedures in force, repealed Directive 2005/8. The old text included a clarification that the European Commission removed from the new one. The Court concluded that it is not possible to designate as “safe”, and therefore as a destination for migrants ordered to leave the territory, States where part of them is not “safe”. At the time, the idea was to prohibit the repatriation of Syrians to their country, even if part of it was peaceful. Indeed, the European Union had aligned its policy with that of the United States and Israel. It wanted to deprive Syria of its population in order to weaken it, militarily speaking, against the jihadists.

This is the application of a NATO military theory: “migration as a weapon of war”. This concept was........

© Red Voltaire