The ECtHR jurisprudence on the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens at land borders in the aftermath of <i>N.D. and N.T. v Spain</i> : Between deference and discipline

Since 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dealt with an unprecedented number of applications concerning the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens at land borders under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (A4-P4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Contrary to what might be expected after the Grand Chamber judgment in N.D. and N.T. v Spain – which introduced an ‘exception’ for land borders – most of those applications have led to unanimous findings of violation. In principle, this suggests that, after all, N.D. and N.T. has had a negligible impact on the subsequent jurisprudence, and that the ECtHR has embarked on a ‘migrant-friendly’ trend since. However, this paper critically reassesses and rebuts this suggestion. It argues that the ECtHR is simply holding Hungary and Poland (the States which have produced the most A4-P4 cases) to a different yardstick in order to ‘discipline’ them. This ‘disciplinary’ track of jurisprudence may not be sustained in light of the upcoming Grand Chamber judgments concerning the EU-Belarusian border.