Spain's Supreme Court has ruled that immediate border returns cannot be used for migrants intercepted at sea near Ceuta and Melilla. The decision restricts the measure to those who physically cross land barriers.
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on Spain's controversial 'hot return' policy, ruling that migrants intercepted while swimming toward Ceuta or Melilla cannot be summarily expelled under current law. The decision, issued this week, restricts the use of immediate border returns to cases where individuals physically overcome established land barriers, such as border fences, at the Spanish enclaves in North Africa.
This new legal stance comes after the court reviewed the case of an Algerian national who was intercepted at sea on November 14, 2024, while attempting to reach Ceuta with two others. The man was handed directly to Moroccan authorities without any formal procedure, legal assistance, or opportunity to seek international protection. He challenged the expulsion, seeking €6,000 in compensation for moral damages and requesting measures to facilitate his return to Spain.
Lower courts in Ceuta and the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia had already sided with the migrant, except for the compensation claim. They found that the law's provision for immediate expulsions—known as 'rechazo en frontera'—applies only to those who cross land barriers, not to those intercepted at sea. The Supreme Court has now confirmed this interpretation, rejecting the State's final appeal and clarifying that the special regime for Ceuta and Melilla does not extend to all irregular border crossings by land or sea.
In its reasoning, the court emphasized that technological surveillance tools—such as drones, thermal cameras, or sensors—cannot be equated with physical barriers like fences. These devices may detect and monitor, but they do not physically prevent or stop border crossings. The ruling also notes that if the government were to install physical maritime barriers in the future, the law could potentially allow immediate returns for those who overcome such obstacles.
The judgment, authored by Justice Fernando Román, signals a significant limitation on Spain's ability to carry out express expulsions at its North African borders. It also highlights the ongoing legal debate over the rights of migrants and the scope of border enforcement measures. The court's decision may prompt authorities to review current protocols for handling sea arrivals, especially as migration routes and tactics continue to evolve.
Spain's approach to border management has faced scrutiny in recent years, with legal challenges and public debate over the balance between security and human rights. The Supreme Court's ruling adds to a series of judicial interventions shaping the country's migration policies. In a related context, Spanish courts have also addressed state responsibility in other areas, such as workplace conditions, as seen when a court in the Canary Islands ordered Social Security to compensate a civil servant for stress caused by understaffing—a case detailed in this report on workplace risk prevention failures.
Ceuta and Melilla remain unique entry points to the European Union, separated from Morocco by fortified borders. While 'hot returns' have been a tool for rapid expulsions, the Supreme Court's clarification narrows their application, reinforcing the need for due process in cases involving sea interceptions. This development may influence future policy discussions and operational decisions at Spain's external borders.
