REFUGEE LAW: INTERPRETATION & iMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 31 IN CASES OF SMUGGLING AND THE EVOLVING GREEK CASE LAW
- hrlpsteeringcommit
- Jul 23
- 2 min read
Seeking asylum is not a crime. And yet, across Europe people on the move are systematically criminalised simply for navigating their own route to safety.
In the name of combating “migrant smuggling,” people on the move, individuals who flee conflict, poverty, and persecution are routinely arrested, charged with felonies, and imprisoned -merely on the accusation of driving the boat or vehicle who brought them to safety. As a result, these prosecutions disproportionately target the very people smuggled, whose only “offence” lies in having acted during moments of danger or coercion, in order to survive.
Greece, in particular, has witnessed a dramatic rise in such prosecutions. People arriving by sea who are found to have steered a boat are charged under smuggling laws, regardless of profit motive or personal circumstances.
At the heart of this phenomenon lies a dangerous conflation: movement is treated as criminal intent. Structural barriers to legal migration, the lack of safe and legal access to asylum and aggressive border deterrence policies have left people with no choice but to cross borders irregularly. Instead of recognizing the coercive conditions behind these journeys, many states pursue a punitive logic—treating survival as smuggling, and necessity as a felony.
Working on the frontlines of the EU, HRLP has committed to tackle the systematic criminalization of migration. To defend the fundamental rights of people on the move and challenge the violent border regime which puts their safety on the line.
In every single boat driver case that HRLP has taken up over the past years, we have been clear and adamant about our positions:
The prosecution of asylum seekers under smuggling laws amounts to a violation not only of due process, but of basic principles of human rights and refugee law.
Specifically, in criminalization cases, HRLP lawyers have consistently raised the argument of the the non-penalization of asylum-seekers, as set out by Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and the Greek Migration Code alike.
Although long overdue, in a series of landmark decisions made by the Court of Samos in June, the argument raised by HRLP lawyers was accepted, and the Court acquitted 10 defendants of all charges on the grounds of the non-penalization of asylum seekers.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
In light of the recent groundbreaking rulings, and with the aim to allow for a more-in depth understanding of the laws protecting asylum seekers from prosecution, HRLP publishes a Legal Analysis on the Interpretation & Implementation of Article 31 in Cases of Smuggling and the Evolving Greek Case Law.
The report in question, written by HRLP lawyer, Ioanna Begiazi begins by analysing the foundational principle of non-penalisation under Article 31 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, with particular attention to its application in cases where individuals—such as those who steer a boat—undertake acts directly linked to their own irregular entry.
The paper also examines the relevant Greek legal framework, evaluating how the non-penalisation principle is implemented in practice, particularly in the criminalisation of so-called “boat drivers", and consequently assesses whether domestic practice aligns with international obligations.
The final section offers conclusions and targeted legal and policy recommendations aimed at closing the gap between legal standards and enforcement realities.
Comments