From Melilla to Strasbourg: unpacking the Spanish inspiration in the ECtHR's volte-face on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR ; De Melilla a Estrasburgo: un análisis de la inspiración española en el giro del TEDH con respecto al Artículo 4 del Protocolo N.º 4 CEDH ; De Melilla à Strasbourg : une analyse de l’inspiration espagnole dans le revirement de la CEDH vis-à-vis de l’Article 4 du Protocole No. 4 CEDH

Few jurisprudential U-turns in the history of the ECtHR have attracted as much criticism as the one in the case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain. Indeed, not only did the Grand Chamber severely curtail migrants’ rights at land borders, but also did it with a largely unconvincing reasoning. In fact, the ECtHR had to come up with some legal novelties and resort to rather confusing arguments in order to force a non-violation verdict that could not have otherwise been reached. For this reason, the ECtHR has often been accused of ‘inventing’ new limitations to Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR (A4-P4). This paper purports to demonstrate, however, that the ECtHR did not really ‘invent’ anything. Rather, the change would have actually originated in Spain, and the ECtHR would have only taken inspiration therefrom to make the jurisprudential change happen. This would suggest an atypical ‘bottom-up’ influence or inspiration from the State level to the ECtHR which would raise, in turn, a series of methodological issues and have a ‘top-down’ impact back on the State level. This is an avenue worth exploring, as it may cast a new light, not only on the Grand Chamber judgment of N.D. and N.T., but also on the restrictive approach towards A4-P4 over the last years, both at the ECtHR and within the Spanish framework. ; Pocos giros jurisprudenciales en la historia del TEDH han suscitado tantas críticas como el del caso de N.D. y N.T. c. España. En efecto, la Gran Sala no solo recortó gravemente los derechos de los migrantes en las fronteras terrestres, sino que además lo hizo a través de un razonamiento poco convincente. De hecho, el TEDH tuvo que recurrir a varias novedades jurídicas y a argumentos un tanto confusos para forzar un fallo absolutorio que no podría haber alcanzado de otra forma. Por esta razón, el TEDH ha sido a menudo acusado de haber «inventado» nuevas limitaciones al Artículo 4 del Protocolo n.º 4 CEDH (A4-P4). Este artículo pretende demostrar, sin embargo, que el TEDH no «inventó» realmente nada. Más bien, el cambio ...