The Council of Europe has published the minutes of the sitting of the Committee of Ministers held in Chişinău, Republic of Moldova on 15 May 2026. This includes statements concerning the adoption of the Chişinău Declaration on migration. The 110-page minutes document provides an indication of the tenor of the discussions held in this regard. The following provides extracts from the submissions made by Council of Europe Member States and other participants to the debates, showing that some States welcomed the Declaration, others alluded to divisive underlying concepts and yet others distanced themselves from the Declaration, noting the risks to human rights and particularly its problematic endorsement of so-called “return hubs”.
The minutes show that numerous representatives congratulated the States of the Council of Europe on reaching agreement on the Declaration. For example, Denmark lauded the “constructive dialogue”, Serbia welcomed the “common European response that will simultaneously protect human dignity, the security of States and the integrity of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Switzerland applauded the compromise found and the recognition of the “préoccupations exprimées démocratiquement par nos citoyens”, and Czechia argued that the Declaration “demonstrates the strength of the Council of Europe in addressing current challenges.”
A number of States described the declaration as a balanced outcome. For example, the Netherlands considered that the Declaration “hits the right balance by addressing both the most pressing challenges faced by member States in relation to migration and the importance of the European Convention of Human Rights and the independence of the Court.” Latvia considered that the Declaration provided “a well-balanced political framework that respects the independence of the European Court of Human Rights and its authority to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights.” Italy, one of the original “Letter of Nine” states, also expressed its satisfaction with the Declaration: it showed “appreciation” for the Council of Europe’s work while describing the Declaration of proof that “this Organisation must demonstrate its ability to renew itself, responding to changing international contexts and evolving challenges.” It gave particular importance to the Declaration’s “recognition of the validity of new approaches to migration, including co-operation with third countries. It is essential to be able to respond to today’s challenges with new tools, in full respect of the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the independence and role of the Strasbourg Court.” Meanwhile Belgium, another co-initiator, continued to insinuate that individual rights of migrants and the public interest are oppositional, and must be balanced against each other; (“Il est en effet important d’assurer à la fois, d’une part, les droits individuels des migrants et, d’autre part, l’intérêt public. Les États doivent pouvoir mener une politique migratoire efficace, y compris le retour, pour garantir aussi la cohésion sociale de leurs sociétés.”).
Some States made statements that alluded to, but did not explicitly voice, the idea that a ‘living instrument’ interpretation of the ECHR may also be regressive, instead of progressive, under changed circumstances. For example, Sweden congratulated the Declaration on recognizing that “our governments today also face several migration-related challenges which either were unforeseen at the time the Convention was drafted or have evolved significantly since then.” The United Kingdom noted that action was needed because “in order to protect the European democracy and the rule of law, we also need to demonstrate that we can respond to the new and changing challenges our countries face. Nowhere is that more the case than on tackling illegal migration, where democratic consent is at risk should we fail to respond to public concern.” Estonia considered that the Declaration protected both State sovereignty and the independence of the Court and ensured “that democracy is able to defend itself against the instrumentalisation of migration by hostile States.” Meanwhile, the European Union considered that the Declaration “confirms the significant, complex and evolving migration-related challenges that we are all facing and highlights that the Convention is a living instrument in the present-day realities and remains applicable in response to novel challenges.”
The United States also intervened, in the most openly anti-migrant statement to be found in the 110-page minutes document, by stating that the US “are deeply concerned with the overwhelming crisis of mass migration into Europe. As Secretary Rubio said in Munich, opening the door to mass migration was a mistake that threatens the cohesion and stability of our societies and the future of our nations. Continuing to ignore popular opposition to an issue as fundamental as demographic change and cultural erasure will only continue to fuel political instability and lead to the breakdown of law and order. We welcome the emerging consensus across Europe that unchecked mass migration imposes severe costs on our societies, and the reaffirmation that national governments have the sovereign right to control their borders and their immigration policies to promote their national interests. From introducing rigorous visa vetting to reinvigorating hate crime prosecutions, the United States continues to lead by example in the fight against antisemitism.”
Not all participants were as satisfied with the Declaration, or its implications. Iceland emphasized the importance of non-discrimination. The Holy See called for solidarity. Andorra argued that “[l]es flux migratoires réguliers contribuent à la prospérité de nos pays. Il convient donc de poursuivre notre dialogue franc et ouvert au sujet des migrations, toujours sous le prisme des droits de l’Homme.” Portugal recognized “the complex challenges of irregular migration for our societies and the diversity of perspectives among member States. But we must always bear in mind the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, the respect for the principle of subsidiarity and the protection of migrants’ fundamental rights.” Mexico submitted that “a sound and effective migration governance based on human rights is an asset that can be leveraged for development and prosperity.” Montenegro noted the risks of disinformation, “as illustrated by the recent inaccurate claim that Montenegro would become a hub for migrants from third countries”. And the Conference of INGOs recognized “the cynical and inhumane use of migrants to destabilise our democratic system. But the link between problems with migration and the Court seems redundant when one looks at the few cases actually brought to the Court in this field and the number of verdicts in favour of States. The Declaration speaks about the instrumentalisation of migrants, but we see here another instrumentalisation, to use the emotional theme of migration as a can opener to rip into the Convention system and the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, indeed into the judicial system in general.” The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights was even more emphatic, arguing that “[w]e have now arrived at a moment at which we must express a firm determination. A determination to insist on the universality of human rights, as well as on the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, and of all other courts. This is no less a moment for us to resolve never to instrumentalise human rights standards or institutions in the pursuit of policy goals, including policy goals in the context of migration management.” The ECtHR’s President, meanwhile, expressed the Court’s commitment to subsidiarity and efficiency gains, as well as the need to protect its independence.
Perhaps the most clear statement against the Declaration’s anti-migration underpinnings came from Spain‘s statement against return hubs. Spain noted that “we are not in favour of formulas that neither solve irregular migration nor address its root causes. Instead, they raise difficult questions about our obligation to secure all human beings their human rights and dignity, the rights and freedom as defined in the Convention, creating new challenges and problems. Consequently, Spain disassociates itself from the reference to return hubs and language that could imply support for such formulas.” Spain also published a statement during the deliberations, cited here in full:
“In relation to the Chișinău Declaration on migration, this delegation would like to make the following national statement: Spain strongly believes that a human rights-based approach to tackle migration advances integration and social cohesion, benefitting societies as a whole, anchored in European values and the tradition of the Council of Europe.
Spain keeps its determination to fight against migrant smuggling and criminal organisations trafficking with human beings. Spain will continue encouraging dialogue with the countries of origin and transit for migrants as the most efficient strategy.
On 10 December 2025, the informal Ministerial meeting held in Strasbourg, which launched the process of a political declaration on migration declared that member States were “Mindful of the need to preserve the integrity of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights] system as the cornerstone of the protection of human rights in Europe and of the Convention’s central role in the maintenance and promotion of democratic security and peace throughout the Continent”.
During the process of drafting the present declaration, Spain has recalled this first concern on several occasions.
Regarding the content of the declaration on migration that is to be approved today, this delegation states that Spain does not align with the references made in paragraphs 46 and 47 to “return hubs”. The use of “return hubs” in third countries is not an effective measure against illegal migration. On the contrary, “return hubs” do not guarantee the security of our borders and put at stake the respect for human rights. Thus, Spain does not align with the reference made to “return hubs” in this declaration and rejects any mention that could imply support for such measures.
Spain expresses its opposition to return hubs as a tool to manage migration. We deem such a mechanism not to be in compliance with human rights and dignity.
Spain wishes to recall the reference of the document agreed last 10 December 2025 regarding “the fundamental responsibility of governments to ensure national security, public safety and the economic wellbeing of the country, as well as their sovereign right to protect their borders, whilst respecting without discrimination the core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and conscious of the financial challenges encountered by multilateral co-operation on migration issues”.
Finally, Spain reaffirms its deep and abiding commitment – as a member of this Organisation – to the Convention, to the fulfilment of the obligation to secure every human being, the rights and freedoms as defined in the Convention. We defend therefore the principles of the universality of human rights and the independence of the European Court of Human Rights as inextricable parts of the human rights protection system in Europe and the fundamental values the Council of Europe stands for.”
.
