|
EDITORIAL
What was agreed? What are the consequences? Where are we now?
ECRE will analyse the detailed texts of the General Approach, when they are available. In the meantime, 48 points can already be made on the agreement reached yesterday among the EU Member States on the Pact on Migration and Asylum to reform EU asylum law.
- The EU Member States have reached an agreement on key pillars of the EU asylum system, responsibility, solidarity and procedural rules. The agreement has been under discussion throughout the Swedish Presidency.
- This is not the final word – the Council will negotiate with the Parliament on the basis of this agreement and the Parliament’s respective agreement in order to reach a common position which will become law. However, it is to be expected that Parliament will concede – and these are more or less the positions likely to be adopted.
- The agreement reduces protection standards in Europe, which is kind of the point. Whether it will meet its other objectives of deterring arrivals, rapid returns or reducing so-called secondary movement remains to be seen.
- Two countries opposed the agreement: Hungary and Poland, primarily on the basis that they don’t believe that Europe should have an asylum system. Four countries abstained: Bulgaria, Malta, Lithuania and Slovakia, for different reasons in each case.
The headlines
- Overall, states have agreed on labyrinth of procedural rules, byzantine in their complexity and based on trying to limit the number of people who are granted international protection in Europe.
- They fail to address the major the dysfunction of the system, the Dublin rules, which escape largely intact.
- An underlying objective is to transfer responsibility to countries outside Europe, even though 85% of the world’s refugees are hosted outside Europe, mainly in desperately poor countries. The targets are the countries of the Western Balkans and North Africa, through the use of legal tools such as the “safe third country” concept. Nonetheless, the reforms do nothing to increase the likelihood that these countries agree to host people returned from the EU.
- Within Europe, the reforms increase the focus at the borders.
- As such, the reforms go in the opposite direction to the successful response to displacement from Ukraine, which demonstrated the value of light procedures, rapid access to a protection status, allowing people to work as soon as possible so they can contribute, and freedom of movement which allows family unity and a fairer distribution of responsibility across Europe.
Procedural changes
- Instead, new elements include expanded use of border procedures, inadmissibility procedures, and accelerated procedures, and the Pact deploys legal concepts to deflect responsibility to other countries, such as the safe third country concept. More people will be stuck at the borders in situations akin to the Greek island model.
- There will be an expanded use of the border procedure with it becoming mandatory for people from countries where the protection rate is 20% or below.
- Countries in the centre and north insisted on this change before agreeing to solidarity because their primary concern is ending so-called “secondary movement”. Safeguards such as access to legal assistance or to an appeal are reduced. There will be almost no exemptions for vulnerable people, families or children, and more procedures will be managed in detention.
No new responsibility rules
- The rules on responsibility remain the same as now under Dublin, with the principle of first entry still in place.
- The period of responsibility of the country of arrival for an applicant is extended. It will be two years for people who enter at the external border, but reduced to 15 months after a rejection in the border procedure (to give states an incentive to use the border procedure), and reduced to 12 months for those rescued at sea (to give states an incentive to stop watching people drown).
- The improvements to the rules on responsibility (compared to Dublin) proposed by the Commission have been rejected, including a wider family definition to allow family unification with siblings.
A new solidarity mechanism
- To compensate for the effects of the rules, a solidarity mechanism is introduced to compensate the countries at the borders in situations of “migratory pressure”. A separate mechanism for situations of search and rescue has been rejected.
- Solidarity is mandatory but flexible, meaning that all countries have to contribute but that they can chose what to offer: relocation and assuming responsibility for people; capacity-building and other support; or a financial contribution.
The numbers
- The states have agreed on a minimum of 30,000 people to have their applications processed in a border procedure every year. There will also be a “cap”, a maximum set several times this number which increases over the first three years.
- Member States’ individual adequate capacity (minimum number or target for border procedures) will be set using a formula based on the overall adequate capacity and the number of a “irregular” entries (i.e. people arriving to seek protection).
- Member States can cease to use the border procedure when they approach their target with a notification to the Commission.
- At the same time, the target for relocations is also set at 30,000.
- There is an incentive to provide relocations (rather than other solidarity) in the form of “offsets” (reductions of solidarity contributions for those offering relocation).
- The financial equivalent of a relocation is set at EUR 20,000. Money will also be provided from EU funding for reception capacity to manage the border procedure.
The good news
- This is the beginning of the end of the reforms.
- There is a solidarity mechanism, to be codified in EU law.
The bad news
- Expanded use of the border procedure equals more people in detention centres at the external border, subject to sub-standard asylum procedures.
- With the increase in responsibility for countries at the border, and given how controversial centres are for local communities, there is a risk that they chose pushbacks instead. If Italy’s share of the 30,000 annual border procedure cases is 5000, for example, are they likely to go ahead with detention centres or to deny entry?
- Setting a numerical target for the use of the border procedure – which will almost always take place in detention – creates the risk of arbitrariness in its application.
- The rules on responsibility remain as per Dublin. The Commission’s improvements have been removed so the incentives to avoid compliance, for instance on reception conditions, remain.
- There is strong encouragement of the use of “safe third concept” as a basis for denying people access to an in-merits asylum procedure or to protection in Europe.
- The definition of a safe third country has been eroded as Member States will decide which countries meet the definition. A country needs to meet certain protection criteria and there needs to be a connection between the person and the country, as per international law. However, what constitutes a connection is determined by national law. Examples in the text are family links and previous residence, but a MS could decide that pure transit is a sufficient connection.
- Solidarity is flexible. If Member States can choose, how many will choose relocation? Relocation of people across the EU would lead to a fairer division of responsibility instead of too much being required of the countries at the external border.
- The procedural rules appear complex to the point of unworkability.
Uncertain as yet
- What has been agreed on offsets – solidarity obligation offsets (reductions in a country’s solidarity obligations to others) in the case of offering relocation places and solidarity benefit offsets (reductions in solidarity entitlements of a country under pressure) in the case of failure to accept Dublin transfers.
- Definition of migratory pressure and whether and how it incorporates “instrumentalisation” and SAR.
What will change in practice?
- More of the people arriving to seek protection in Europe will be subject to a border procedure, rather than having their case heard in a regular asylum procedure.
- People will still arrive seeking protection in Europe but they will face a harsher system.
- Responsibilities of the countries at the external borders are increased, which continues to provide an incentive to deny access to territory and to keep standards – on reception or inclusion, for example – low.
- There could now be greater focus on implementation and management of asylum systems. However, the only concrete references to compliance are in relation to achieving the set number of border procedures and in ensuring Dublin transfers happen.
- Onward (“secondary”) movement is still likely, and smugglers will continue to adapt, offering more to take people to countries away from the external borders.
The winners
- The Commission, which has invested everything on getting the Pact passed. “Trust and cooperation is back in the Council,” according to the Commissioner.
- France, the Netherlands and the other hardliners, who have largely got what they wanted.
- The Swedish Presidency, which has brokered a deal and one that suits them – as a less than honest broker. The Minister’s presentation at the press conference underlined secondary movement and enforcement of Dublin.
- Smugglers, who will be able to charge more for the more complex and longer journeys that people will have to take.
The losers
- Refugees, for whom access to a fair asylum procedure will be harder. Risk of detention is higher. Risk of pushbacks is increased. Length and complexity of procedures is increased.
- Non-EU countries at the borders who will deal with more pushed back people and who will be under pressure to build asylum systems to be safe enough to be “safe” third countries.
- The Med5+ who have conceded on every major point and gained very little. They will have to manage the border procedures and, while solidarity is mandatory, it is flexible, meaning that relocation is not prioritised. It all begs the question: what have they really been offered in return?
- Germany, which refused to stand firm and defend the even minor improvements that the government coalition agreement required, and on which it had the support of a small progressive alliance, and potential alliances with the south. For example, on exemptions to the border procedure. Given the desperation to reach a deal more could and should have been demanded.
Editorial: Catherine Woollard, Director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)
EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS
Italy fines and detains two rescue ships under the new decree as five police officers in Verona have been accused of torture and harm against migrants. The Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have held talks with its Tunisian and Libyan counterparts to discuss cooperation aimed at reducing arrivals amid ongoing abuses towards people on the move in the North-African countries. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen, PM Meloni and Dutch PM Mark Lutte are visiting Tunisia this weekend to discuss migration.
Five police officers in the Italian city of Verona have been arrested on charges of torture and bodily harm against migrants and homeless people that were committed from July 2022 to March 2023. Two of the suspects are also accused of racist hate crimes against black people and African migrants and two others have been accused of forcing a person in custody for identification purposes, to urinate on the floor and then using him as a “mop to clean up”. The investigators said the officers had taken advantage of their status to commit the abuse: “It cannot be denied that through their conduct all the suspects have betrayed their function, suppressing the rights and freedoms of people under their authority [and] offending their dignity as people, creating disorder themselves and compromising public safety, committing crimes rather than preventing them, in this respect clearly taking advantage of their status, even committing fraudulent misrepresentation in public acts with worrying ease”. Meanwhile, arrivals, as well as rescue efforts, continue despite the ongoing crackdown on civilian rescue operators. On 2 June, 29 people were rescued by Life Support operated by Emergency, including three women and a child who was at risk of dehydration and hyperthermia. The 29 were disembarked on 5 June after sailing for around 70 hours (662 miles) from the rescue site to the assigned port. On the same day, Mare*Go rescue ship rescued 36 people from distress and was assigned later to disembark in the port of Trapani, Italy – a minimum of 32 hours away. The crew decided to head to Lampedusa after communicating to the authorities that the ship “is not equipped to treat the rescued people on the move for that period of time”. This has resulted in the detention of the Mare*Go ship for 20 days which might also be fined. Also, Sea Eye 4 operated by Sea-eye was detained and fined 3,333 euros for conducting two separate rescue missions for a total of 49 people under the new Italian decree that doesn’t allow rescue ships to carry out several rescues in a row. “It is a political choice: it is absurd to punish those who save lives on the world’s deadliest migration route, the Central Mediterranean. Here, in 2023 alone, an average of almost seven people a day died and more than 5,000 people were brought back to Libyan camps by the so-called Libyan coast guard”, Albert Mayordomo, Life Support’s head of mission commented. And Gorden Isler, Chairman of Sea-Eye said “Punishing us now for complying with international laws is justified solely on the basis of the new Italian law, which is designed to quickly remove civilian rescue ships from the area of operation and to allow them to call at distant ports in order to reduce the arrivals of people seeking protection as much as possible”. “The only real outcome from cases and policies that restrict humanitarian assistance and search and rescue at sea is state sponsored murder. Needless deaths occurring in conditions that we know we could have prevented”, said migratory health nurse Madi Williamson. On 3 June, RESQSHIP spotted a boat in distress carrying 39 people, including 4 unaccompanied minors, and the Italian coastguard rescued the people on board and brought them to Lampedusa. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM): “Less than halfway into the year Missing Migrants Project has recorded over 1000 migrant deaths in the Central Mediterranean. This marks a 1/3 increase in deaths compared to the same period last year”.
The Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni visited Tunisia on 6 June after months of talks aimed at stabilising the country’s economic situation and preventing a financial crisis that could trigger further departures from Tunisia towards Europe. Meloni is trying to ensure that the European funds to the tune of about €500 million could once again flow to Tunisia, as well as release almost $2 billion (around €1.8 billion) in loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Moreover, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is going to Tunisia on 11 June to talk with the Tunisian counterparts on migration. His visit comes after he announced together Meloni that they will work towards deal with African countries. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and PM Meloni are also going to join the meeting to discuss “broad cooperation” on economic cooperation, migration and trade. However, Tunisian President Kais Saied refused the “unacceptable” conditions required for the release of funds. Meanwhile, Tunisian coast guard recovered 9 more bodies from the 31 May shipwreck off the coast of the city of Monastir. Besides, protests of refugees in front of the offices of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). One of the protestors said that “institutions and organizations are once more leaving us behind and do not cooperate with us. They are just giving us deaf ears. The organizations neither care about the children nor about the pregnant women. We are stuck here without access to education, good medication, and justice” and called for their urgent evacuation from Tunisia. He added that the situation in the camp built in front of UNHCR and IOM offices is “getting worse” – 150 people including 15 children, 20 families and pregnant women are living in the tents enduring food shortage and yet more people are joining. On 8 June Alarm Phone reported of: “Escalating border violence in Sfax, Tunisia!” stating: “We have received reports that masked Tunisian forces are violently beating up migrants after intercepting them at sea. A witness reported: “They are using sticks and electric shocks. The people are screaming for help”.
Meloni welcomed a Libyan delegation including Libya’s national unity government Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh in Rome on 7 June after a previous meeting in January in Tripoli to discuss migration, trade and energy agreements. Reportedly, both countries signed agreements, but details are still unknown. Meloni “expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the Libyan authorities in rescue operations at sea and the containment of irregular departures”, the government state in a press release, adding the Italian prime minister shared “concern” over the summer season and urged the Libyan counterpart to “intensify efforts in countering human trafficking”. Meanwhile, in a continued crackdown on migrants, Eastern Libyan authorities rounded up thousands of people on the move, mostly from Egypt, and amassed them at the border with Egypt for deportation. Groups assisting migrants estimated that 6000 people have been held at the border. Activist Tarik Lamloum with the Belaady Organization for Human Rights reported that the “migrants were detained in raids over the past two days on trafficking warehouses in the border town of Musaid and other areas in eastern Libya”. “The situation is bad and tragic. The area is not equipped (to host detained migrants)”, said Esreiwa Salah, an activist with al-Abreen group. The EU-funded so-called Libyan Coastguard intercepted 900 people between 28 May and 3 June, raising the total number of intercepted people so far in 2023 to 6684. On 7 June, the hotline Alarm Phone was alerted that a rubber boat carrying more than 100 people was adrift close to the Libyan territorial water. On 8 June, the organisation reported that 300 people who fled Libya in a fishing vessel are in distress with water entering the vessel. On the same day, the crew of Geo Barents of MSF sea witnessed the interception of 50 people in a boat in distress in the international water by the so-called Libyan coastguard after being alerted by Sea-Watch who said that “Frontex was aware about the distress case”. Before the arrival of Geo Barents to the scene, the crew also reported of “smoke rising on the horizon, indicating another boat engulfed in flames”. “Intercepting, forcibly returning people to Libya is unfortunately a common practice in the Central Med, with the support from Italy and the EU”, the organization said.
Cyprus unveils a campaign entitled “Let’s Talk Truth About Cyprus” directed towards asylum seekers especially those from Sub-Saharan Africa in an attempt to reduce the number of arrivals to the island. The island’s interior minister, Constantinos Ioannou, also said authorities had recently recruited additional guards and deployed additional resources to process asylum applications as a plan to establish a migration minister is being discussed for better management.
For further information:
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed that “Illegal Migration Bill” is working but was faced with questions about its high cost, impracticality, negative impact on vulnerable people and other asylum policies. Barges and shared rooms in overcrowded hotels are the accommodation options Home Office offer to asylum seekers.
The asylum bill went back to the House of Lords on 5 June for the second day of committee to put forward amendments on a range of topics including the return agreements with third countries, removal of unaccompanied children after reaching the age of 18 and support for victims of trafficking. Chief Policy Analyst, Jon Featonby from ECRE member Refugee Council, said that the focus of the debate was on the removal of children, noting that there are no “real answers” from the migration minister Robert Jenrick on how the bill is going to work in practice. A Home Office source said that PM Sunak’s bill is “based on demented assumptions” about its deterrent effect, adding that officials were “despairing” about the practicalities of implementing measures in the bill. “If everybody knows that so-called deterrent measures don’t work, why does the government insist on continuing to implement ever crueller & more inhumane measures? It is just cruelty for cruelty’s sake”, commented the Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex & London. On the same day, Sunak gave a speech in Dover “to congratulate himself and to tell us that his plan is working”. In his speech, the prime minister said the returns deal with Albania had led to 1,800 people being sent back and that crossings are now down 20% compared to last year. Shadow Secretary Yvette Cooper said that “the asylum backlog he promised to clear is at a record high, decisions are down, caseworker numbers have dropped, hotel use is up, returns are still down, only 1% of last year’s small boat cases have been processed, and seven and a half thousand people arrived on dangerous small boats in the last few months alone”. Sunak also underlined in the speech that the country’s asylum system is “overwhelmed by people from safe countries”, a claim “That’s simply untrue” as “Most people are refugees from the most dangerous places on earth” as Refugee Council said. Besides, the Home Office estimates that it will have to spend between £3bn and £6bn on detention facilities, and ongoing accommodation and removals under the planned measures. The Home Office also hopes that the number of people detained will reduce and therefore reduce the cost of detention. “Instead of moving forward with this hugely expensive and unworkable crackdown on refugees seeking safety in the UK, the government should be focusing on creating a system that protects the right to claim asylum and that prioritises both compassion and control”, Featonby said. Such measures including slower asylum decisions and costly hotel use are expected to further increase the public spending on the asylum system under the Tories in 2022-23 which has risen from £550m in 2012 to £2.1bn in 2021. Targets to reduce net immigration are not “particularly helpful”, said the migration minister, noting that the country’s asylum system was “riddled with abuse”. “Indeed, asylum system is abused – by right wing politicians who are scapegoating refugees in misguided belief that will gaslight the electorate away from their incompetence, the economic and environmental disaster that they are responsible for”, said Organiser at Migrants Organise Zrinka Bralo.
A new investigation finds Home Office has provided more than £3m in funding to Turkish border forces in the last year to prevent migrants reaching the UK. The funding to Turkish coastguard has increased from £14,000 in 2019 and rose to £425,000 in 2021-22 for training and equipment and up to £3m this year for “return and reintegration assistance”, training and personnel. Mahmut Kaçan, Turkish lawyer on asylum, said “The UNHCR never criticises or mentions what Turkey is doing at the border. They are complicit in the deaths of these people, as are the EU and other countries that are giving money to Turkey for border security”. Home Office justifies this increase of funds saying that Turkiye is ““a country of emerging importance [to the UK government] in the last two to three years and is now seen as strategically crucial to border securitisation”. The Home Office faces a wave of legal claims after the UK’s surveillance watchdog, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), found a blanket policy of seizing thousands of asylum seekers’ mobile phones causing “significant harm”. The organisation said in a press release that its investigation into the phone seizures, which occurred during 2020, found immigration officials made serious errors in complying with investigatory powers rules. Meanwhile, Meta has released data on how the British authorities have been using personal data to profile migrants and show them fear-based messages to discourage people from using “small boats”. The Home Office has “built up profiles of the different refugee groups they want to target by combining multiple layers of minute behaviors and interests with location data detected” by Facebook. For instance; Home Office ran an ad targeting all Arabic speakers in Brussels. Lecturer in digital methods, Ben Collier, said that it is “absurd” that the government thinks that such an invasive form of digital targeting “would deter someone fleeing war and death, someone spending everything they have to reach Calais, leaving behind their lives and families”. Besides, the Home Office is facing questions after an Afghan asylum seeker who claimed to be 16 years old took his own life after receiving rejection to his asylum application. “He was a young person and he should be placed in a very secure place. And why was there no support that could have prevented him from taking his own life? These are very serious questions and these questions need to be answered by the Home Office”, said Shukrullah Ludin, the founder of Labour Friends of Afghanistan. The United Nations Committee of the Rights of the Child urged the government to repeal provisions in the Asylum Bill that violate children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of Children and the Geneva Refugee Convention.
Two new barges have been purchased to house up to 1.000 asylum seekers. One of the barges will be docked at Portland Port. PM Sunak said that the barges “will relieve pressure on local communities” and spaces in hotels being used to house migrants. However, dozens of protesters gathered around Portland port ahead of the arrival of the barge, claiming the location was chosen without consulting locals. Royal Docks management authority (RodMA), the Mayor of London’s office, Newham Council and the airport opposed the government’s plan to house asylum seekers in Barge next to London City Airport and therefore, Home Office has declined the plan. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: “”Vulnerable people fleeing appalling circumstances would not have access to the support they need, with their safety, health and wellbeing being put at serious risk. Councils and relevant partners need to retain the legal powers and the funding to support asylum seekers humanely and with dignity”. The Prime Minister also announced that nearly 3,000 asylum seekers will also be housed on two military sites in Wethersfield and Scampton by the autumn. Moreover, Home Office announced a plan to house 300 asylum seekers in a single hotel in an attempt to reduce hotel use and its costs. Dafydd Llywelyn, Dyfed-Powys police and crime commissioner said the lack of planning by the Home Office around temporary accommodation was “extremely concerning” as “There has been no local engagement or any form of consultation with local service providers to understand the impact of locating in excess of 300 asylum seekers at one location in Llanelli”. About 40 asylum seekers were offered space in a Pimlico hotel, but refused to enter after being asked to sleep “four people per room” and were consequently “left on the street”. A Home Office spokesperson said accommodation was offered on a “no-choice basis” and “meets all legal and contractual requirements” and the migration minister said that it is “fair and reasonable” to ask asylum seekers to share rooms in hotels in some circumstances. Westminster Council leader Adam Hug criticised a situation in which people who “are likely to have been through significant and traumatic events” were being asked to share “an inappropriately sized room with multiple strangers”. In a letter he sent to Home Secretary, “Neither the Home Office nor the hotel itself responded to this incident, ultimately leaving it to council officers to manage and support this large group overnight. I would ask that you urgently clarify how this was allowed to happen, why this was acceptable, and why no communication was made with the local authority to alert us.”
For further information:
At a hearing in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), MEPs condemned the European Commission’s “silence” on Greek pushbacks. In the Evros region, people on the move continue to be caught in the stand-off between Greece and Turkije.
On 5 June, MEPs in the LIBE committee debated the situation in Greece with home affairs commissioner, Ylva Johansson and Commission vice-president Margaritis Schinas – a member of former Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ New Democracy party. According to Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN), the two officials praised accomplishments in Greece with Schinas pointing to alleged improvements related to the highly controversial EU-funded Closed Controlled Access Centres (CCACs): “I am really proud as an EU Commissioner and Greek citizen … that we are delivering something that is substantially better”. Solomon questioned Schinas over his declared ignorance of a classified fund created in May 2020 through a ministry bill allowing the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum to distribute funds without informing the Parliament. “Is there a secret fund? I do not know and I would be surprised if there would be one, frankly,” Schinas stated. Further, the recent documentation by the New York Times of the pushbacks of 12 migrants including children and an infant from Lesvos – adding to mounting evidence of such practices by Greek authorities – was discussed at the LIBE hearing. Commissioner Johansson, stated it: “seems to be clear deportation,” adding: “This is not the first time that we had this situation”. Schinas expressed confidence in the investigation by the Greek national transparency authority (NTA) – denounced by the UN special rapporteur for human rights and NGOs as “politically compromised and ineffective”. Reportedly, the Commission vice president said the NTA should be given some leeway because migration “has not been in their core duties in the past”. Confronted with another documented pushback of a Frontex interpreter allegedly mistaken for an asylum seeker and beaten by Greek authorities, Schinas said: “I have no information on that”. Meanwhile, EU lawmakers including German MEP, Birgit Sippel and Dutch MEP, Sophie In ‘T Veld condemned the Commission’s “silence” over Greek pushback practices. Citing praise by Commission officials congratulating and praising Greece for “protecting” European borders, Sippel stated: “This is not fighting pushbacks, this is empowering [and] encouraging people to continue that way”. In ‘T Veld said: “This is about investigating criminal behavior… Where’s the humanity in this? Where’s the sense of urgency in the commission?”, adding: “This is not the European way of life, and I do not have confidence in the Commission that you are going to tackle this”. Meanwhile, pushbacks continue: “We have registered 5 pushback cases in the Aegean Sea this week, involving 182 men, women and children. In one of these pushback cases the Greek coast guard used life rafts, 84 people was forcibly removed from Greek waters and left helplessly drifting in 4 life rafts in the Aegean Sea”, Aegean Boat Report stated on 7 June.
In the Evros region separating Greece and Turkiye, notorious for being the scene of violence and pushbacks against people on the move, reports of non-response to distress alerts and pushbacks continue. On 3 June, the NGO hotline Alarm Phone reported of “More people stranded on same islet near Nea Vyssa, stating: “This afternoon, we informed the Hellenic police about 24 people incl. 5 children whose position shows them on the same islet as another group recently. They are there for 5 days & don’t have food or water left”. On 6 June, Alarm Phone, reported: “as far as we have been informed, three different groups are on this island, in total around 330 people. Many among them are stranded on the islet for several days now. Greek authorities are aware of the presence of the people but refuse to evacuate them!”. Meanwhile, media have reported about a group of 70 to 80 people of the Yezidi minority stranded on an islet in the Marasia area of the Evros region with Greek authorities claiming they were on Turkish territory and accordingly no rescue operation could be carried out. Journalist, Vedat Yeler commented: “This is a tragically funny situation. If Greece gives the islets to Turkey, why is the border drawn on the google map not corrected?”. On 4 June, Greek authorities launched an operation to “collect” the stranded group, according to a statement from authorities, as they had moved to the “Greek side” of the islet. According to police, a total of 91 people including 34 children were transferred to a processing center near the border with Turkiye. Researcher, Lena K, stated: “the ‘collection’ of people from the Marasia islet has begun, so Greece might have invaded Turkey after all”. In the context of information from Politico that Turkiye “took dozens back” from the islets on request from the Greek government, Lena K further noted: “Unless we unquestionably accept the islet is Turkish, although the Greek authorities have made false claims about islet sovereignty before, this is a mass pushback. Even if people were on Turkish territory, there are significant implications for seeking protection and free movement”. On 8 June, Hotline Alarm Phone reported that “While some people were returned to Türkiye, others are still stuck on different islets. They state clearly that they want to apply for asylum. If returned to Türkiye, many fear deportation to Syria”. Pointing to the responsibility of both the caretaker (interim) Prime Minister Ioannis Sarmas and state-owned media – turning the situation into a security issue – the Greek outlet Efsyn (translated) describes how it has provoked: “a new wave of direct or veiled anti-refugee rhetoric in public discourse”. Following elections in both countries – in Greece still in process – caretaker (interim) Foreign Minister Vassilis Kaskarelis and Turkije’s new Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan discussed the increase of increase of crossings in the Evros region in a phone call on 6 June. Meanwhile, reportedly a young Moroccan man was shot by Turkish military guards while trying to cross into Greece via the Evros River and is now transferred to Didymoteicho Hospital where he is currently undergoing surgery.
In a Joint statement by borderline-europe, Aegean Migrant Solidarity, Can’t Evict Solidarity and Legal Centre Lesvos, state: ”On 08 June, the appeal trial against Abdallah, Kheiraldin and Mohamad, known as the Paros3, will take place on the Greek island of Syros. Because they had steered the boat on which they and around 80 other people tried to reach Europe, they were sentenced to a total of 439 years for smuggling on 05 June 2022. They have already spent 1.5 years in prison”. The organisations: “demand their immediate release from prison, freedom for all those arrested for boat driving and an end to the criminalization of migration and incarceration of people on the move!”.
For further information:
REPORTS & NGO ACTIONS
The updated AIDA Country Report on Switzerland provides a detailed overview on legislative and practice-related developments in asylum procedures, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers, content of international protection, as well as procedure for and content of status S protection in 2022.
In 2022, the authorities registered 24,511 applications for international protection in Switzerland, a 64% increase from 14,928 in 2021. This notably included 2,450 applications from unaccompanied minors, mostly from Afghanistan, a 148% increase from 2021. The overall recognition rate at first instance was 81%, with 45% refugee status and 36% temporary admission. Over 12,200 cases were still pending at first instance at the end of 2022. In the same time, out of 3,703 applications for humanitarian visas, only 142 were accepted, mainly for Afghan nationals, and 641 persons were resettled. As of December 2022, the government temporarily halted the resettlement programme due to lack of capacity.
Concurrently, the authorities received 74,959 registered applications for status S, of which 72,611 were granted. 74,661 residence permits were issued during 2022. As of 31 December 2022, there were 62,280 persons benefitting from status S in Switzerland. The status is in law broader regarding third country nationals, as it includes all persons with a valid short stay or residence permit in Ukraine and who are unable to return to their country of origin. Persons with a protection status in another safe country (e.g. temporary protection in an EU Member State) cannot receive status S in Switzerland even if they have renounced this previous protection, unless they were issued such protection in a country particularly affected by the Ukraine crisis, assessed on a case by case basis.
The rise in asylum applications in a context of already highly accelerated and rushed asylum procedures put the spotlight on the weaknesses of the accelerated procedure applied by default in Switzerland; more persons were assigned to the extended procedures. The rise in applications also led to a reception crisis in Switzerland, with conditions in some federal centres becoming untenable. To increase capacity, the SEM reallocated spaces in ordinary centres as dormitories and opened approx. 20 temorary asylum centres, while on the other hand reducing the number of residents in federal centres. Most temporary centres consist of military barracks, or military multi-purpose or sports halls, in which personal and family sphere cannot be adequately respected. The current plan is to continue with use of more military buildings.
Due to a rise in applications also specific to this group, the SEM introduced acceleration measures for asylum procedures concerning unaccompanied minor asylum seekers; in this context, NGOs have recalled the State’s obligation regarding child protection, particularly re. accommodation, access to care and asylum procedures. In a report drawing upon visits in asylum centres in 2021 and 2022, the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture expressed severe concerns regarding the situation of unaccompanied minors who cannot receive personalised support since at least February 2022, and concluded that the current treatment of minors is in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Federal Administrative Court took a number of key decisions regarding transfers of asylum seekers and BIPs. In particular, the Court lifted the obligation, set out in 2019, for the government to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities in the case of take charge Dublin procedures concerning persons with serious health problems; the obligation is maintained for take back procedures due to the risk of being excluded from accommodation. Also regarding Dublin transfers, in March 2023 the Court assumed all persons returned to Croatia will have access to the asylum procedure, denying the existence of systemic deficiencies and clarifying the transfer could only be suspended in exceptional cases. Regarding BIPs from Greece applying for asylum in Switzerland, the Court held that in general persons can in be transferred back; however, this can only occur in case of favourable conditions regarding families will children; for extremely vulnerable persons, the removal could be considered reasonable only in exception cases where they are particularly favourable circumstances.
Lastly, following an ECtHR case against Denmark, in a leading judgment the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the statutory waiting period imposed on persons with temporary admission for family reunification procedures is no longer strictly and automatically applicable. Applications for family reunification must already be examined after one and a half years if further waiting is disproportionate in individual cases.
For further information:
The updated AIDA Country Report on Greece provides a detailed overview on legislative and practice-related developments in asylum procedures, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers, content of international protection, as well as procedure for and content of temporary protection in 2022.
In 2022, the Greek Asylum Service received a total of 37,762 asylum applications, mainly from applicants from Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Palestine and Iraq. The recognition rate for cases examined on the merits at first instance stood at 57.4%. However, in 3,601 first instance cases applicants were not provided with access to an in merits examination: their applications were examined under the safe third country concept with Türkiye designated as a safe third country for certain applicants, despite the fact that that there have been no readmissions since March 2020. In February 2023, the Council of State referred a question to the CJEU on this matter.
The overturn rate upon appeal continued to be very low at 11.74%, although up from 4% in 2021. However, 1,790 appeals were rejected as “manifestly unfounded” without an in-merit examination, due to the fact that the appellants did not comply with disproportionate administrative burdens, and 2,696 appeals received inadmissibility decisions based on Türkiye as a safe third country.
Concurrently, 21,532 persons were granted temporary protection in Greece in 2022. The temporal scope of protection was broader than that of the EU decision as persons who had arrived in Greece from 26 November 2021 onwards were eligible for temporary protection if they had been unable to return due to the war.
At least 18,780 refugees and migrants arrived in Greece in 2022, a 105% increase compared to 2021. However, this may be an underrepresentation given the number of alleged pushbacks that continued to be systematically reported in 2022. These have been criticised at large including by UN, Council of Europe and EU bodies. In July 2022, the ECtHR found violations of articles 2 and 3 ECHR by the Greek government in the case of a shipwreck which occurred during an alleged pushback, resulting in the death of 11 people. The newly established mechanism for compliance with fundamental rights has been widely criticised with regard to independence and effectiveness. Moreover, human rights organisations and lawyers supporting pushback victims face defamation, intimidation and risk of criminalisation.
Access to the procedure also remains highly problematic, due to the dysfunctional online appointment system for registration. In addition, those who present themselves at the registration facilities risk de facto detention for up to 25 days. Access to the procedure for subsequent applications is also hindered by a fee, the principle of which has been contested before the Council of State (the decision is pending). Moreover, despite a slight decrease in pending cases, processing times for applications continue to be extremely long.
As regards reception, those arriving on the islands continue to be subject to a geographical restriction order, applied en masse without prior assessment. In August 2022 the ECtHR granted interim measures in the case of vulnerable applicants in need of emergency medical treatment stuck in Samos despite the fact that they could not receive appropriate medical treatment on the island. Approx. 2/3 accommodated asylum seekers were housed in mainland camps, while 4,371 persons remained in closed centres on the islands. The ESTIA accommodation scheme, which housed 1,843 applicants, was terminated in November 2022. Living conditions in mainland camps were increasingly reported as poor and unsanitary; significant concerns were also reported regarding the new closed control access centres on the islands, including those recently improved such as Samos.
During 2022, applicants for international protection as well as rejected asylum seekers continued to be systematically detained without any proper consideration of the prospect of return to Türkiye, despite returns being suspended since March 2020. Moreover, applicants who have booked a registration appointment through the official platform are in practice arrested and detained in view of removal, despite holding a document proving the appointment. In both scenarios, the illegality of the situation has been pointed out by courts. In many cases, detention conditions fail to meet adequate standards. No free legal aid is provided for a detainee to challenge their detention decision before Courts, contrary to national and EU law.
As regards beneficiaries of international protection, long waiting periods were observed for renewal of residence permits, time during which BIPs cannot effectively access any rights except that they do not risk detention. Moreover, due to inter alia length of procedures and documentation requirements, BIPs continue to be unable to effectively exercise their right to family reunification. Lastly, homelessness and destitution of BIPs continue to be a very prominent issue, prompting Germany and the Netherlands to refrain from returning BIPs to Greece as a matter of policy.
For further information:
RECENT REPORTS
- Mixed Migration Centre, Mixed Migration Trends and Dynamics in West Balkans & Northern France and Belgium, June
- PROTECT Project, The Right to International Protection. A Pendulum between Globalization and Nativization?, 16 May
- Caritas Europa, Lessons learnt from welcoming Ukraine refugees, 5 June
- ECRE, A possible agreement on the reform of CEAS at the Council in June: What is at stake?, 6 June
- FRA, Eight years of EU asylum and migration: progress and challenges, 30 May
- Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, One Year of Application of Temporary Protection in the Republic of Serbia: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations, June 2023
- Lighthouse Reports & Partners, The Crotone Cover Up, 2 June
- IRC, Two years on: Afghans still lack pathways to safety in the EU, 31 May
- DRC, Protecting Rights at Borders, May
- Red Cross, Safe pathways to international protection in the EU, 30 May
- Brot für die Welt, Country Brief on EU Migration Parnterships with Third Countries – Niger, May
- MPF, Mapping of complementary labour and education pathways for people in need of protection, 25 May
- Joint Statement: Extend the Current Temporary Protection Regime for Displacement from Ukraine until 2025, 19 May
- UNHCR, “If you really want to stay, you will do whatever it takes”, 17 May
- Fenix Aid, No Safe Place: SOGIESC Asylum Seekers & Reception Conditions Policies, 17 May
- Joint Report: Being Hungry in Europe: An Analysis of the Food Insecurity Experienced by Refugees, Asylum Seekers, Migrants, and Undocumented People in Greece, 15 May
- Euro-med Monitor, Unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors in Europe face inadequate protection, 18 May
- Pro Asyl, Appeal from more than 50 organizations to the federal government: No compromises at the expense of refugee protection in the European asylum law reform!,17 May
FEATURED CAMPAIGNS
EVENTS
- 14 June, Mixed Migration Trends and Dynamics in the Western Balkans, Northern France and Belgium, Mixed Migration Centre
- 26 June, Practitioners meet Academics: A Dialogue on Complex Protection Claims and Academic Impact in the Courtroom, Queen Mary, University of London
- 1 July, From Tripoli to Bruxelles: Amplify Voices of Refugees in Libya, Refugees in Libya
- Refugees in Libya28 June, Ireland's Historic Regularisation, EPIM
- 28 June, In front of the European Parliament, We kindly request you to stop killing, Alarm Phone
- 21 - 23 June 2023, ‘Inequality and Fairness in Refugee Protection’, 7th Annual Conference, Refugee Law Initiative, University of London,
- 27 and 28 June, Conference on Schengen: Quo Vadis?, Odysseus Network, Brussels
- 15-16 June, ECRE Annual General Conference 2023, ECRE
- 26 June, Brussels, Summer school - Transnational Family Dynamics in Europe, IOM
VACANCIES
- Amnesty International, Global Youth Management Lead, 18 June
- IOM, Brussels, Project Assistant (Migration Mainstreaming), 24 June
- I Have Rights, Samos, Advocacy & Communications Intern, ASAP
- ENAR, Facilitators, 18 June
- Asylum Aid, Children’s Asylum Solicitor/ Caseworker, 26 June
- Systematic Justice, Remote/Europe, Communications Coordinator, 25 June
- Systematic Justice, Remote/Europe, Community Organiser, 22 June
- Safe Passage, Digital Mobilisation Manager, 26 June
- IRC, France Advocacy Lead, 11 June
- University of Galway, Ireland, Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, 29 June
- Louise Michel, Captain, ASAP
- Netherlands Helsinki Committee, Communications Intern, 19 June
- Netherlands Helsinki Committee, Security and Human Rights Intern, 19 June
- IOM, Brussels, EU Reporting and Programme Support Officer, 19 June
- Council of Europe, Human Rights Adviser, 26 June
- AIRE Centre, Legal Project Manager, 12 June
- JRCT, Hybrid, Grants Officer
- Plan International, Romania, Admin & Procurement Officer, 17 June
- Collective Aid, Fundraising and Grants Manager, ASAP
- Collective Aid, Multiple Positions, ASAP
- IOM, Beirut, Senior Partnerships Manager, 13 June
- IOM, Geneva, Emergency Programme Officer, 13 June
- MSF Belgium, Change Communications Officer, 12 June
- UNHCR, Stockholm, Communications & External Relations Intern, 8 June
- FRA, Vienna, Multiple Internships, 19 June
- Irish Refugee Council, Ireland, Finance and Administration Assistant, 19 June
- University of London, Lecturer, 14 June
CALLS FOR PAPERS & OPEN CALLS
- Call for Participants: Trauma and Racism Project, Race Equality Foundartion
- Call for Submission: the other side of hope: journeys in refugee and immigrant literature, 5 August
- Calls for Research Fellow: The new HORIZON EUROPE project FAiR, 27 June
- Call for Applications: CAPRS Non-Residential Fellowship, Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies
- Call for Registeration: Demo: Democracy, Elections, Mentorship, Organizing” Programme, European Alternatives, 30 June
- Call for Applicants: Summer school on EU Migration and Asylum Law, Odysseus Network, Brussels, 3-14 July
- Call For Applicants : Scholarships For Turkey And Syria, University Of Glasgow, 30 June
- Call for Participants Summer Training School: Migration and Mobility in the Digital Age, Academy of Law and Migration (ADiM), July 3-7, 2023
- Call for Papers: Legal Avenues to Access International Protection: in Search of the Right to Asylum in Europe, Academy of Law and Migration (ADiM), October 5-6
- Call for Participants: Online Course on International Refugee Law, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 19-14 July
- Call for Registration : International Online School in Forced Migration and International In-Person Summer School in Forced Migration, June
- Call for Cases related to European migration law, Migration Law Clinic, June
- Calls for The United Nations Winter Immersion Programme, United Nations
- Call for applicants: Human Rights & the Arts Fellowships for Academic Year 2023-2024, Open Society University Network
- Call for Papers and Registeration, Inequality and Fairness in Refugee Protection, University of London, 21-23 June 2023
- Research Fellowship, Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute
- Call for papers, The economic impact of technological transformation, globalisation and migration, CEPS
- Applications for scholarships, 28 Scholarships for Displaced persons, Rolling basis, University of London
|
|
