Downing Street also rejected comparisons to Russia refusing to comply with a Rule 39 interim measure, declaring: “It would be bizarre to draw any comparison between Russia‘s cruel treatment of Alexei Navalny, who was a victim of an attempted assassination attempt, and our plan to protect and deter vulnerable migrants from making perilous crossings across the Channel.”

Former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick accused the ECHR of “naked judicial activism” and warned that “an international court only has the powers that member states confer on it”.

Mr Jenrick added: “The UK and other signatories expressly refused to give the Strasbourg court the power to make binding interim measures back in 1949.”

And Senior Tory backbencher and leading Eurosceptic David Jones said: “Rule 39 indications are not binding on the UK.

“They are pronouncements frequently made in the dead of night by Strasbourg judges on the basis of minimal evidence and without hearing argument.

“They are alien to our legal system. Under the Rwanda Bill, ministers can ignore rule 39 indications.

“Furthermore, the Prime Minister has said that he won’t allow a foreign court to stop the flights taking off. He was entirely right to do so.”

In June 2022, the ECHR issued an injunction – known as interim measures under Rule 39 – to prevent the first deportations of asylum seekers to the East African nation. It was issued in the evening, leading to it being dubbed a “pyjama injunction”.

Ever since, the Government’s flagship scheme to end the Channel migrant crisis has been gridlocked in the courts.

And Rishi Sunak was forced to draw up emergency legislation after the Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda Scheme was illegal.

The Prime Minister has also introduced – through the Rwanda Bill – new powers to allow ministers to ignore the interim measures and insisted the move was legal.

Siofra O’Leary, the Irish president of the ECHR, told a news conference: “There is a clear legal obligation under the convention for states to comply with Rule 39 measures.”

She stressed that the UK Government had itself argued that Russia should comply with Rule 39 measures in relation to the release of anti-Kremlin politician Alexei Navalny in 2021, and last year over the fate of UK nationals detained by Russian forces in Ukraine.

Asked whether the Government now accepted Ms O’Leary’s statement as definitive with regard to Rule 39 orders, the spokesman said: “No. I think we’ve set out our case very clearly.

“I think firstly, we are confident our legislation is compliant with our international obligations. We’re clear the Bill and the treaty address the (UK) Supreme Court’s concerns – there should be no need for Strasbourg to intervene to block flights in the way they did in 2022,” he said.

The spokesman added: “We’ve also drafted the Bill to give ministers the power not to comply with those rulings if necessary. And obviously every case is assessed on its individual facts. But the PM has been clear repeatedly that we will not let a foreign court block flights from taking off.”