This article examines how governments invoke national security arguments and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) responds in cases concerning Article 1 of Protocol 7 (A1P7) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This provision guarantees procedural safeguards for the expulsion of lawful residents. Based on a systematic content analysis, this study finds that governments frequently raise national security concerns without substantiation. In most instances, the ECtHR has resisted deference to these claims, consistently upholding minimum procedural guarantees and insisting on their substantive application. This prevailing interpretation of the Court has, nevertheless, not yet reached its full potential for protection, being permeated by multiple limitations, a wide margin of appreciation, and a range of possible counterbalancing factors. In addition, the absence of determining violations of A1P7 in two recent cases may signal a shift – either improved governmental compliance or a more restrictive approach from the Court. While A1P7 jurisprudence currently offers relatively strong protection, the path towards enhanced safeguards appears unlikely, especially amid increased political pressure, as exemplified by the 2025 joint letter from nine States urging restraint on the Court's interpretative role in migration matters.
Jessica Klüger (Tue,) studied this question.