Category: Flight and migration

The commission explained here how it will fund the Egyptian coast guard with â'¬80 million over the next two years to drag people back into the country, even though the human rights situation is catastrophic. The Commission modestly refers to this as "preventing irregular migration by sea".

You can find the request with answers in several languages here.

My request

Commissioner Várhelyi has recently confirmedthat the Commission has pledged long-term and short-term financial support to Egypt amounting to almost EUR 300 million. According to News reports 80 million of the funding for the Egyptian Coast Guard is earmarked for “border protection†and for preventing Egyptians from fleeing. The Parliament has repeatedly expressed its concern about the disastrous human rights situation in Egypt.nd since January 2021, 3,500 Egyptians have fled the country by boat to Italywhich makes them the second largest group of people arriving there from Mediterranean countries.

• Can the Commission provide an overview of all equipment or services supplied to the Egyptian authorities and the Coast Guard, in particular for border protection, and what is the timetable for future distribution?

• What indicators will the Commission use to ensure that EU-Egypt migration cooperation is in line with Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union, i.e. that human rights are respected and promoted, e.g. by ensuring accountability for possible human rights violations?

• What human rights impact or risk assessment has been (or will be) carried out on this financial support to ensure that it does not facilitate or be used for human rights abuses?

Answer given by Olivér Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission on 25.08.2022

The Commission stands ready to assist Egypt in maintaining its capacity to prevent irregular migration by sea and in strengthening the control of its border with Libya and Sudan. This is of particular importance given that irregular entries of Egyptian nationals into the EU (over 90 % to Italy, mainly via Libya) increased sixfold in 2021 (to 9219).

Against this background, the Commission is currently developing, in close coordination with the Egyptian authorities, a measure to support border management (search and rescue, land and sea border surveillance). A total budget of EUR 80 million is foreseen, to be implemented in two phases: EUR 23 million in 2022 and EUR 57 million in 2023. As the measure has not yet been adopted, there is no overview at this stage of the equipment or services that will be provided to the Egyptian authorities in this framework.

The measure will be subject to an ex-ante risk assessment and monitoring measures will be in place throughout its duration to ensure that the measure does not jeopardize compliance with international human rights law and the protection of refugees and migrants.

Following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, the Commission suspended most of its agreements with the country and largely ceased cooperation with Afghanistan. Since then, in response to the events in Afghanistan, it has established a Action Plan which was leaked to the media. I asked the following questions about it:

You can find the entire request with answers in several languages also here.

My questions

• Has the action plan already been adopted? If so, will there be reports on the implementation and will the measures be made publicly available?

• Is the parliament informed about the implementation of the action plan?

• Will the Commission disaggregate and communicate its commitment to receive 38,000 vulnerable Afghans by Member State and by program (resettlement, humanitarian reception, etc.) and how many Afghans are currently arriving in Europe through both the official evacuation routes and the programs for Afghans at risk?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 17/08/2022

The Action Plans to strengthen comprehensive migration partnerships with priority countries of origin and transit, including the Action Plan adopted in response to the events in Afghanistan, were jointly developed by the Commission and the European External Action Service in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council of June 2021 and subsequently presented to the Member States at the meetings of the Council Working Group on External Asylum and Migration Policy. These action plans are dynamic documents that will evolve over time. They are intended for internal use by the EU and its Member States and should contribute to the development of a common strategic approach to cooperation with partner countries. The objective of this specific action plan is to strengthen the measures to be taken in support of the Afghan people or together with Afghanistan’s neighbors. Afghanistan is in great need of humanitarian aid, and the country’s own resources are limited. EU humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan is already underway and is being provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.

The Commission is determined to continue to keep the European Parliament fully informed on all aspects of migration policy, including its actions in Afghanistan and the region. The Commission will continue to inform the Parliament about the evolution of the humanitarian situation on the ground and the adaptation of the EU humanitarian response.

3. The commitments made by the member states regarding Afghans at risk for the period 2021-2022 are as follows to be taken from the appendix. Member States have reported to the Commission that by April 2022, almost 28,700 persons have been admitted for humanitarian reasons, but resettlement has not yet started.

I asked the EU Commission on 25.05.2022 what it thinks about the fact that the Greek authorities immediately take arriving protection seekers into deportation custody and lock them in a prison that they are not allowed to leave. The Commission responds that it is aware of this practice and that it is also legally justifiable if less drastic measures do not work. These „less restrictive measures“ are not applied, however, and would also have to be subject to a case-by-case review – which they currently are not.

The whole question with answers in several languages can also be found at here.

My request

On May 10, 2022, Greece's National Transparency Authority published an investigative report on suspected refoulements, describing, among other things, the process for managing the flow of asylum seekers reaching Greek territory by land or sea.

• In the light of Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive, what is the Commission's view of Greece's practice of placing new arrivals in detention pending their transfer to a reception and identification center in the Evros region (p. 23/24)?
• Taking into account Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive, what is its view of the practice whereby applicants are kept in the facility for up to 25 days from registration during the reception and identification procedures, but are not allowed to leave the facility because they are in detention (p. 29)?
• How are statistics collected on "prevention" (p. 56) and how many cases of prevention were recorded by the Greek authorities in 2021? Please provide a breakdown by police directorate (Alexandroúpoli, Orestiada, North Aegean and Dodecanese).

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 3.08.2022

The Commission is aware that persons arriving irregularly across the land border with Turkey at Evros are transferred to the Reception and Identification Center in Fylakio, where they are subject to the Reception and Identification Procedure and undergo a medical examination, registration of personal data, fingerprinting and interview, after which they are directed to follow-up procedures (asylum for persons applying for international protection or repatriation of persons who renounce such an application).

With regard to administrative detention during the reception and identification procedure, Article 8(3) of the Reception Conditions Directive provides that[1] in accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[2] an exhaustive list of grounds on which an applicant may be detained when less coercive measures cannot be effectively applied. Among the grounds for detention listed there is the need to establish or verify the identity or nationality of the person. However, such decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. The Commission is closely monitoring the situation on the ground and is in dialogue with the Greek authorities. However, it does not collect statistics on 'preventions' and does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.

Since 2015, the European Union has provided Greece with a total of €3.38 billion to address migration and border challenges. 2.53€ billion has been drawn down by Greece to date. 

The European Union's support to Greece is provided through three pots: the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), the Internal Security Fund (ISF) and the  Emergency Support Instrument (ESI). The largest pot is the AMIF, through which a total of €328.3 billion has been made available. This budget item supports EU member states for the purpose of efficient management of migration and the implementation and strengthening of the Common European Asylum System. The ISF provides money for the management of visas and entry, control of external borders, but also returns, for example through Frontex. Here, Greece has been allocated €320 million. The ESI provides support for emergencies and gives money for humanitarian aid, the share was 668.9€ million. Most of the regular money from AMIF, ISF and ESI goes to the national authorities, that is, to the Greek authorities dealing with migration and asylum, such as the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum. 

In addition to the regular requirements, funds can also be mobilized from AMIF and ISF for other short-term emergency needs ("Emergency Assistance"). In the case of Greece, the Emergency Assistance funds represent the largest sum of all the funds that have been mobilized. 1,54€ billion. Two thirds of all Emergency Assistance funds have gone to international organizations, the last third to the Greek authorities. It is important to note that a total of €2.06 billion has been made available, but Greece has not drawn down all of it.

Political will for good care is lacking

In fact the Greek authorities received 2,53€ billionto cope with the increased number of arrivals in recent years. In this context, it is particularly important to note that 3.38€ billion awarded were made, but a large part of it was not spent. This clearly shows that the funds available are necessary to provide adequate and dignified care for refugees on the Greek islands and on the mainland, but the political will is missingto implement it in this way. 

Basic requirements of the EU Reception Directive are still not being met in Greece, such as the right to education for children. The provision of food is also still problematic and inadequate. Enough money would actually be available to solve the problems in the long term. Even the European Court of Auditors as the EU's own authority, came in its Annual Report 2019 reached similar conclusions, without explicitly naming them as such. There was no explicit misappropriation of funds, but some funds from Emergency Assistance were misappropriated for longer-term projects and structures, although they may only be used flexibly for short-term emergency needs. In addition, the ACA criticized the inefficient use of the funds and thus the Discrepancy between EU targets and actual results – in other words, the lack of political will. Now, the money is not only going to the Greek authorities, but also to international organisations. But even more money to international organisations is not necessarily helpful if the Greek government does not support their work. blocked and criminalized, as is the case especially on the Greek islands. 

If you would like to take a closer look at the money that has been budgeted and paid out, you will find here is an overview from the European Commission. It also presents how much money went to the different international organization as well as to which Greek authorities. 

Looking at the numbers makes one thing very clear again. The state authorities and organizations actually have enough resources to treat people with dignity. But it seems to be politically not desired.

All 27 EU countries are ready to accept refugees from Ukraine. After a meeting of EU interior ministers:inside on 03 March 2022 it was announced that the EU would A guideline which guarantees war refugees from Ukraine protection in the EU - without costly asylum procedures. It is great that Europe is finally sticking together when it comes to taking in refugees. By activating the directive, refugees from Ukraine will be offered protection and perspective without bureaucracy. The directive also clearly states that refugees have a right to work and become self-sufficient. Member states must also ensure that refugees are either provided with adequate housing or given resources to take care of such housing themselves. Medical care and access to the education system must also be guaranteed. 

Current flight movements from Ukraine

Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania have opened their borders and allow all people from Ukraine to enter. The refugees do not need a passport, which many Ukrainians do not have. The non-EU country of Moldova also allows refugees to enter. However, due to the general mobilization, Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 cannot leave Ukraine in most cases. So far, according to UNHCR (as of March 11, 2022), more than 2.5 million people have fled Ukraine, in addition to more than one million internally displaced persons in Ukraine. Putin's war of aggression has led to the largest movement of refugees in Europe since the end of the Second World War.

The legal basis 

The legal basis for this action is the so-called Mass inflow Directive 2001/55/EC. Denmark is the only EU state outside the scope of the directive. The directive provides a mechanism for the EU-wide coordinated reception of large numbers of refugees beyond the individual asylum procedure and beyond the Dublin system. Responsible for determining a "mass influx" is the Council of the European Union. The Parliament is only informed of the decision, but is not allowed to comment on it in advance. 

This law was created to grant protection after the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, but has not yet been used. In 2015, it was not applied because it was not foreseeable whether the necessary EU decision would be reached.

Where do we go from here?

In principle, the directive stipulates a minimum period of one year, but this can be extended. The actual implementation of the directive is up to the member states. They must now make commitments about how many refugees they want to take in. The Ukrainian refugees can choose an EU member state in which they will receive protection under this directive.

Unfortunately, the directive leaves one important point open, namely how to deal with third-country nationals. Germany wants to accept all refugees from Ukraine regardless of their nationality. There will also be no upper limit, said Interior Minister Faeser.

Challenges 

Currently, the member states, especially those on the border with Ukraine, are facing very great challenges. So far, there are not enough services for vulnerable groups such as children. The situation at the borders and the initial reception is not good and needs to improve quickly. It is also important that access to state services – schooling, medical care – is guaranteed quickly and easily.  

My demands and proposals 

It is important that the Commission now coordinates that refugees who do not have a specific country of destination are assigned to Member States so that we arrive at a fair distribution. Member States that take in many refugees should receive financial support from the EU in this regard. The most important thing, however, is that the member states implement the directive openly and appropriately and also grant access to third-country nationals and do not screen out those people who have had to flee Ukraine but are not Ukrainian citizens.  

In recent years, refugees from war zones have been turned back again and again, although this was forbidden and inhumane. One can only hope that the current crisis will help the EU states to adhere to the applicable law and quickly implement today's decision. Regardless of the directive and the criteria set, all those seeking protection have the right to access the asylum procedure. There must be no rejections.

Together with other members of my group, I submitted a question to the Commission on 11 October 2021 concerning the systematic pushbacks by Croatian police officers. The background to the question is that Mirror and Tagesschau published video footage showing Croatian border guards illegally deporting protection seekers with brute force. In the video, protection seekers are ordered to run and then beaten with batons as they run. It is also clear from the footage that this practice is happening on the orders of the Croatian Ministry of the Interior. Systematic violence against refugees has been documented in Croatia for years, and the Commission has so far failed to respond adequately to the crimes committed. In addition, there is evidence of misuse of EU funds provided by the Commission to the Croatian Ministry of Interior under the Emergency Assistance Agreement to support the management of the situation at the country's borders. In the meantime, we also know that Croatian border guards have a have received official instructionsThe police have been ordered to continue deporting people seeking protection illegally, but to make sure that they are no longer filmed doing so. Of the four police officers who can be seen on the video, three were briefly suspended, but are now back on duty.

In its response, the Commission refuses even to acknowledge that Croatia systematically carries out pushbacks, although these have been documented thousands of times and for over four years. The Commission also maintains its recommendation to allow Croatia to join the Schengen area, although Croatia's practice at the external borders clearly violates the Schengen Borders Code. The Commission does not intend to initiate infringement proceedings against Croatia, pointing out that it has repeatedly asked Croatia to investigate the allegations and that Croatia has established a monitoring mechanism for such cases. This attitude is cynical because the Croatian government and authorities are supposed to monitor themselves, when it is they who are responsible for the systematic pushbacks. The monitoring mechanism is not independent and it obviously does not work.

The whole question with answers in several languages can also be found at here.

Our request

Violent deportations and beatings at Croatia's external borders

On October 6, 2021, several media outlets, including Der Spiegel, ARD, and RTL Croatia, published the results of their research into the unlawful deportations at Croatia's external borders, carried out with brute force, which are said to be the fault of the country's police officers acting on the orders of the Ministry of Interior. Systematic violence against refugees has been documented in Croatia for years, and the Commission has so far failed to respond adequately to the crimes committed. In addition, there is evidence of misuse of EU funds provided by the Commission to the Croatian Ministry of Interior under the Emergency Assistance Agreement to support the management of the situation at the country's borders.

1.how will the Commission investigate the deportations ordered by the state, and what role will the results of the investigation play in Croatia's path to Schengen membership, which was recently endorsed by the Commission?

2.what concrete measures have already been taken in the framework of the independent monitoring mechanism that Croatia has set up at its border with EU funding, and how does the Commission intend to make monitoring more transparent and effective and involve credible actors, as enshrined in the Paris Principles?

3.what timetable does the Commission envisage for initiating infringement proceedings against Croatia for the country's practices at its external borders, which are in breach, inter alia, of the EU acquis on asylum?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 17.2.2022

After nearly four years of evaluating Croatia's implementation of the Schengen acquis, the Commission concluded that the country has taken all necessary measures to ensure that the conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis are met on a sustainable basis. On 22.October 2019, the Commission issued a Communication[1]which confirmed what was stated on June 2, 2021 in the Communication on the Schengen Strategy.[2] was reaffirmed. Furthermore, at its meeting of 9/10 December 2021, the Justice and Home Affairs Council[3] concluded that Croatia fulfills the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis.

Regarding allegations of mistreatment of migrants, the Commission has repeatedly asked the Croatian authorities to conduct investigations in this regard. An independent monitoring mechanism has been established in Croatia, with a publicly available six-monthly (interim) report published in December 2020, followed by an action plan to implement the initial recommendations. While the Commission has provided assistance in this regard, the responsibility for setting up the mechanism, including the composition of the relevant body, lies with the Croatian authorities. The final report of the mechanism is expected to be submitted in June 2022. The Advisory Committee, composed of representatives of the Commission and stakeholders in the field of fundamental rights, will make recommendations to improve the functioning of the mechanism. Croatia has also strengthened its internal investigation system.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to monitor compliance with the EU acquis.

The European Anti-Fraud Office is responsible for cases of suspected misuse of EU funds. If there is sufficient suspicion of fraud or misuse of EU funds, the Office may initiate investigations. Funding provided to Croatia from the three relevant EU instruments over the past four years has been independently audited and not objected to.

---

[1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the verification of the full application of the Schengen acquis by Croatia (COM(2019)497 final of 22.10.2019).

[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council "Strategy for a well-functioning and resilient Schengen area" (COM(2021)277final of 2.6.2021).

[3] Council document14883/21 of 9.12.2021.

Greece rejects asylum applications on the grounds that Turkey is a „safe third country“, but Turkey does not allow them to enter. From a question of mine it now emerges that the EU Commission classifies this procedure as contrary to European law. Although Turkey has not accepted readmissions since March 2020, Greece rejects the applications of Syrian, Afghan, Somali, Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals on the basis that Turkey constitutes a "safe third country" for these same nationals. At the same time, however, in its response to Written Question P-000604/2021, the Commission reiterated that "Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive states […]: 'Where the third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to an [asylum] procedure is granted.' In line with this provision, applicants whose application has been declared inadmissible may therefore reapply." The Commission also informs in its reply to me that they have already explained to the Greek government „that the unconditional charging of a fee of 100EUR for subsequent applications is problematic in terms of effective access to the asylum procedure.“

The whole question with answers in several languages can also be found at here.

My request

Although Turkey has not accepted readmissions since March 2020, Greece rejects the applications of Syrian, Afghan, Somali, Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals on the basis that Turkey constitutes a "safe third country" for these same nationals. At the same time, however, in its response to Written Question P-000604/2021, the Commission reiterated that "Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive states […]: 'Where the third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to an [asylum] procedure is granted.' In line with this provision, applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible may therefore reapply."

1.How many subsequent applications were filed by persons whose initial asylum application was rejected on the basis that Turkey was a safe third country for them?

2. in how many of these cases did Greece apply Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive? Is Article 23 of Greek Law 4825/2021, according to which a fee of EUR 100 is incurred for the submission of a second application, compatible with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive?

3.is it compatible with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive to reject such subsequent applications as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has not invoked any new elements relating to Turkey as a safe third country?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 25.1.2022

1. the Commission services forwarded the Honourable Member's question for reply to the national authorities, who will send him the answer as soon as possible.

According to Article38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, "Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is granted in accordance with the principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II". Although Chapter II of the Asylum Procedures Directive does not address the issue of fees, the Commission has drawn the attention of the Greek authorities to the fact that the unconditional charging of a fee of 100EUR for subsequent applications is problematic in terms of effective access to the asylum procedure.

3. a precondition for the application of Article38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive is that the third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory. If this condition is met, Member States must ensure that access to a procedure on the merits is granted. They may therefore not reject the subsequent application as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept.

The Greek government is continuing to push ahead with the sealing off of Europe and in September passed a law that makes sea rescue and generally the observance of human rights even more difficult and is therefore contrary to European law. Together with members of my group, left and social democrats, we have asked the EU Commission about this – however, the Commission evades all questions in its response and refuses to evaluate the laws. One must interpret this „answer“ therefore as an approval of the Greek action against protection seekers.

The whole question with answers in several languages can also be found at here.

Our request

Subject: New law on expulsions and repatriation procedures in Greece

On September 3, 2021, the Greek Parliament passed a reform law on expulsions and procedures for the repatriation of third-country nationals, which was passed exclusively by a majority of the ruling party.

At the drafting stage, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, expressed serious reservations about the draft law and, in a sense, called for its withdrawal because it was "not in line with human rights standards" and would thereby "seriously hamper the life-saving activities of non-governmental organizations and their ability to monitor human rights in the Aegean."

1. whether the Commission considers that this new law, and in particular paragraph 40 thereof, which introduces restrictions essentially prohibiting non-governmental organisations from carrying out or assisting rescue operations at sea and making them punishable, is compatible with the Greek Government's commitment to respect human rights and the Commission's guidelines in this area?

2.does the Commission approve of the tendentious method by which paragraph 40 was introduced after the end of the public consultation period?

3.Does the Commission consider that, by restricting all the relevant activities of non-governmental organisations, the Greek Government is curtailing the right to asylum, the guarantee of a legal process for all return procedures, non-refoulement and the prevention of automatic, unlawful mass detention?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 6.1.2022

The Commission recognizes the sincere efforts of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to save lives at sea and relentlessly urges Member States and other actors involved to comply with the relevant legal framework and humanitarian principles.

With regard to the possible sanctioning of non-governmental organizations participating in search and rescue operations, the Commission points out that providing assistance to persons or vessels in distress at sea is an obligation under international law and that legally required humanitarian assistance cannot be sanctioned. At the same time, it is the responsibility of Member State authorities to coordinate search and rescue operations in accordance with applicable provisions of international maritime law and international human rights law. It is important that NGOs participating in search and rescue operations cooperate with national authorities in carrying out their activities.

The Commission has repeatedly acknowledged the key role that civil society plays in safeguarding common values and fundamental rights. While the activities of private law entities, including those of non-governmental organizations, need to be regulated in order to ensure full transparency, any restrictions imposed as a condition for operating in Greece must be necessary, justified and proportionate. In this context, the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation and application of EU legislation on asylum and return. The Commission reiterates that Member States must act in full compliance with the relevant rules of international and EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.