The recent backsliding on the interpretation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR in" pushback" cases: A questionable attempt to redress the Hirsi "overstretch"?

This paper focuses on the interpretative backsliding of Article 4 of Protocol No.4 in the context of pushbacks, and critically analyses it from different perspectives. It argues that the backsliding in the interpretation of the provision in the last few years may have been a questionable attempt to implicitly undo (or, at least, to limit the impact of) 'Hirsi Jamaa v Italy', but that it might have more in common with it than initially thought. The paper is structured in four parts. Part I contextualises this backsliding. Part II reviews it through selected jurisprudence from the period 2016-2022 and examines it from a substantive point of view. Part III approaches the topic from a methodological perspective. Part IV places the whole discussion in its appropriate theoretical framework. The paper concludes with some reflections on State influence and the limits of an expansive reading of the 'European Convention on Human Rights'.