The research examines the legality of the adoption of the derogation clause, i.e., Article 15 ECHR, by EU Member States in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Focus of the thesis will be on the impact of the COVID-19 measures on refugees and asylum seekers, adopted by the EU Member States, to close the entry points and suspend asylum applications. Due to the epidemic, very few migrants were able to cross the sea, transit routes in the inner Europe were blocked, leaving asylum seekers stuck in the disastrous camps along the EU external borders. This act of depriving the migrants their right to seek and enjoy asylum which is guaranteed to them by Article 18 Article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has sent a contradictory message to the rest of the world as the EU prides itself to be a "guardian" of human rights. As the pandemic is a threat to public health, Member States adopted the derogation clause. Article 15(1) of the Convention provides that, "In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention?" The Article goes on to place limitations to the application of the derogation clause by stating that derogation is only permissible, "? to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law." The paper discusses the Member States' obligations under international law which have been infringed by the adoption of the derogation clause. The necessity of the measures adopted and their proportionality to the current pandemic situation will be examined. The research aims to establish that alternative measures could have been established, like conducting tests and/or quarantine etc, which would not infringe the States obligations under international and EU law.The research examines the legality of the adoption of the derogation clause, i.e., Article 15 ECHR, by EU Member States in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Focus of the thesis will be on the impact of the COVID-19 measures on refugees and asylum seekers, adopted by the EU Member States, to close the entry points and suspend asylum applications. Due to the epidemic, very few migrants were able to cross the sea, transit routes in the inner Europe were blocked, leaving asylum seekers stuck in the disastrous camps along the EU external borders. This act of depriving the migrants their right to seek and enjoy asylum which is guaranteed to them by Article 18 Article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has sent a contradictory message to the rest of the world as the EU prides itself to be a "guardian" of human rights. As the pandemic is a threat to public health, Member States adopted the derogation clause. Article 15(1) of the Convention provides that, "In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention?" The Article goes on to place limitations to the application of the derogation clause by stating that derogation is only permissible, "? to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law." The paper discusses the Member States' obligations under international law which have been infringed by the adoption of the derogation clause. The necessity of the measures adopted and their proportionality to the current pandemic situation will be examined. The research aims to establish that alternative measures could have been established, like conducting tests and/or quarantine etc, which would not infringe the States obligations under international and EU law.