Austria’s plans to deport a Syrian man with multiple criminal convictions have been put on hold after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued an interim order halting the removal until Sept. 8.
The Interior Ministry confirmed the decision but downplayed its significance, calling it a “routine” procedural measure that comes as “no surprise.”
Interior Minister Gerhard Karner (ÖVP) stressed that expulsion plans for foreign criminals remain underway. “All preparations for the implementation of this and further deportations to Syria are still being made,” the ministry said in a written statement. Karner insisted the suspension was temporary and “absolutely nothing unusual,” adding that asylum cases are always handled individually.
As reported by ORF on Tuesday, the ECHR’s order follows questions about whether Austria can guarantee deportations to Syria comply with human rights law. Judges have also requested explanations regarding the fate of another Syrian deported from Austria in July — the first such removal in years — who has since disappeared without a trace after being handed over via Istanbul. Karner rejected suggestions that Austria bears responsibility for tracking deportees abroad, saying the priority is to “prevent crimes in Austria,” not to “monitor” individuals once they leave.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International Austria, welcomed the ECHR’s intervention, insisting Syria is not a safe country and warning that deportees risk serious abuse. The Deserters and Refugees Advisory Service described the court’s move as a rare and clear signal, noting that such interim injunctions are issued only in exceptional cases.
Austria broke EU precedent last month by deporting directly to Damascus a 32-year-old Syrian man convicted of terrorist association. He had served seven years in prison before being released, reoffending, and being taken back into custody. The ECHR did not block that removal.
The latest halt has drawn sharp criticism from the main opposition, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). MEP Petra Steger called it “a slap in the face” and an example of “ideologically driven, out-of-touch jurisprudence,” arguing that Syria is rebuilding and many asylum claims are now outdated.
Party leader Herbert Kickl accused the ÖVP-led government of “total failure” for allowing the court to intervene.
Writing on Facebook, Kickl said, “Interior Minister Karner has failed completely: He is being celebrated in the media for deportation, and he can’t even manage this one. This is now being exploited by the European Court of Human Rights, which wants to ban deportations to Syria again. It is more necessary now than ever to get criminals out of Austria!”
This is just the latest example of the judiciary in Europe intervening in government asylum policy.
Earlier this month, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that a third country may only be designated as a “safe country of origin” for deportation purposes if it offers effective protection to all population groups — and that this designation must be based on transparent, public information accessible to asylum seekers and the courts. Otherwise, fast-track returns are invalid.
The judgment has major implications for national migration policies, particularly in countries like Italy and Austria that have drawn up their own lists of safe third countries. In the specific case reviewed, two Bangladeshi migrants had been transferred to Albania under Italy’s agreement to process asylum claims outside the EU. Their claims were dismissed on the grounds that Bangladesh was safe, but the Italian law did not cite any sources, which the European Court ruled was a violation of EU law.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni diplomatically called the decision “surprising,” and accused the European judiciary of “claiming rights that are not its own, despite political responsibilities.”
“This is a development that should concern everyone — including the political forces now rejoicing over the ruling — because it further reduces the already limited scope for governments and parliaments to regulate and administer migration,” she added.
