Category: Flight and migration

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.

Domenico Lucano was sentenced to 13 years in prison on flimsy grounds for welcoming refugees as mayor. Together with other members of my group, I have asked the EU Commission how the EU Commission deals with the conviction of the former mayor Domenico Lucano for his reception of protection seekers and in general with the increasing criminalization of human rights activists under the guise of fighting smuggling crime. As usual, the Commission's response does not address our specific questions, but emphasizes general noble principles – without taking action when these principles are violated.

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

Our request

Subject: Implementation of the Smuggling Directive and humanitarian aid

Domenico Lucano, former mayor of Riace, a town in the southern Italian region of Calabria, was sentenced to more than 13 years in prison for aiding irregular migration and for "irregularities" in the care of asylum seekers.

During his term as mayor, Riace gained notoriety for his exemplary reception and integration of migrants. The court's verdict is shocking, as it almost doubled the sentence of seven years and eleven months requested by prosecutors. This is another example of the lack of uniformity in the implementation of the smuggling directive in the EU member states and the worrying criminalization of humanitarian aid.

1. Against this background, how does the Commission intend to ensure that the Lucano case and similar cases of prosecution and guilty pleas do not violate the spirit of the Smuggling Directive?
2. How will the Commission ensure that the Commission's recent guidelines on the implementation of the Smuggling Directive are followed?
3. What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that private operators can bring rescued migrants ashore without fear of being prosecuted?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 21.12.2021)

The Commission's guidelines on the implementation of the Smuggling Directive clarify that lawful humanitarian assistance should never be criminalized and invite Member States, if they have not already done so, to make use of the possibility to distinguish between (non-lawful) acts with the aim of providing humanitarian assistance and acts with the aim of facilitating unauthorized entry or transit and to exempt the former from criminalization.

One year after the adoption of the Guidelines, monitoring of the implementation of the Smuggling of Migrants Directive is intensified under the renewed EU Action Plan against smuggling of migrants. In case of breaches of EU law, the Commission reserves the right to use its powers under the Treaties to initiate infringement procedures. The Commission will report in 2023 on the implementation of the 2020 Smuggling Package and Guidelines and propose a revision if necessary to ensure that the EU is adequately equipped to respond to the changing challenges in this area.

The coordination of search and rescue operations is the responsibility of the Member States; the Commission has no operational tasks in this regard. Nevertheless, the Commission has repeatedly called on all actors involved to comply with the relevant legal framework and, in the context of the new migration and asylum package, has proposed a better coordinated EU approach to search and rescue operations, including the establishment of the first European Contact Group on this issue.

The fact that Libya is not a safe place for people have Studies and court rulings confirmed again and again. The EU Commission has ignored this fact for years and supports the Libyan Coast Guard in returning people fleeing to Libya. In its response to a joint question from several MEPs, the EU Commission refuses to take concrete steps and emphasizes general principles – which, however, are in conflict with actual action.

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

Our request

Subject: Ruling of a court of Naples on the return of migrants to Libya

Libya is not a safe place for people to enter. This was the conclusion of a Naples court in its verdict, sentencing an Italian ship captain to one year in prison for bringing 101 rescued migrants back to Libya with the help of the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG). This should be a clear indication that returning migrants to Libya is unacceptable, not only for commercial vessels operating in the Central Mediterranean, but also for Member States whose search and rescue strategy is built on cooperation with the so-called LCG. Despite clear evidence of inhumane treatment and dangers to migrants in Libya, Union funds have been allocated to train and equip the LCG, and the EU has supported Libya in designating a disproportionately large search and rescue zone, resulting in numerous deaths.

1.what measures is the Commission taking to monitor Member States' cooperation with Libya and withdraw EU support for cooperation leading to the forced repatriation of people?

2.how does the Commission, together with the Frontex Management Board, ensure that the Agency no longer contributes to forced returns by involving the LCG in rescue missions?

3.In how many cases did Frontex inform the LCG about a boat with migrants or a boat in distress, which then led to returns to Libya, and are these cases investigated retroactively?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 21/12/2021:

In its cooperation with Libya, the EU's priorities include: Promoting effective search and rescue operations in compliance with human rights standards; working to end arbitrary detention of migrants; and assisting the International Organization for Migration with voluntary return and reintegration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees with the evacuation of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from detention facilities in Libya. To this end, the EU is funding projects, some of which are being implemented by Member States. The Commission regularly reviews its own operations in Libya by monitoring reports from its implementing partners and conducting targeted audits. Given the particular challenges related to the context in Libya, the Commission has also established third-party monitoring of operations in Libya under the EU Trust Fund for Africa.

Saving the lives of people on board vessels in distress is an absolute priority and the transmission of information to the relevant Maritime Rescue Coordination Center (MRCC) is an obligation under international law. Like any other organization (including non-governmental organizations), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) reports incidents requiring a search and rescue operation at sea to the internationally recognized Libyan Maritime Rescue Coordination Center when an aircraft detects a distress at sea in the Libyan search and rescue zone. While it is necessary to notify the appropriate MRCC in order to save lives in immediate danger, Frontex operational plans require all vessels to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with Regulation (EU) No.656/2014. To date, no disembarkation has been carried out by a Frontex vessel in Libya.

The Commission has asked Frontex to reply to the third question put by the Honourable Members. The Commission will provide the Honourable Members with the Agency's reply as soon as possible.

Greece rejects asylum applications from Syrian refugees on the grounds that they can go back to Turkey because Turkey is a safe third country. In reality, however, Turkey has not accepted any repatriations for some time now, so the people concerned are stuck and can neither go back nor forward. Notwithstanding this, Greece now wants to extend this practice to other countries of origin. Together with MEPs from several political groups, we have asked the EU Commission how it intends to ensure that those affected can once again submit an application that takes the real situation into account in the assessment. In its response, the Commission now refuses to take concrete steps to do so. In fact, it does not even know whether and how many rejected applicant:s will be able to reapply. The Commission responds that it believes that Syrian applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible and not deported to Turkey should be able to reapply. However, the Commission also does not seem to want to draw any consequences if Greece does not do so. Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that it would like to see a resumption of returns to Turkey.

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

Our request

Subject: Inadmissibility of asylum applications of Syrian nationals in Greece

In its letter of July 26, 2021, the Commission stated that Syrian nationals whose asylum claims had been declared inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey was considered a safe third country, but who were not allowed to re-enter Turkey, should be able to reapply for asylum in Greece.

In March 2020, Turkey suspended all readmissions from Greece. Notwithstanding this, since then asylum applications from Syrian nationals continue to be definitively rejected on the grounds that Turkey is considered a safe third country.

• Have all Syrian nationals on the Greek islands whose applications were declared inadmissible been given the opportunity to reapply for asylum? If not, what action will the Commission take to ensure that they are given this opportunity?

• On June 7, 2021, the Greek government proposed declaring Turkey a safe third country for asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Somalia, which would mean that their applications would also be considered inadmissible.

• How will the Commission ensure that asylum applications from these nationals are not declared inadmissible on the false assumption that the applicants can be taken back by Turkey? What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the Greek Government complies with the Asylum Procedures Directive in this regard?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 21.12.2021

In its reply to Written Question P-000604/2021, the Commission stressed that, in accordance with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Greek authorities should ensure that Syrian applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible and not deported to Turkey can reapply. The Commission services have requested the relevant data on asylum applications of Syrian nationals from the Greek authorities, which will be sent to the Honourable Members as soon as possible.

Following the adoption of the Joint Ministerial Decision of 7 June 2021, Greece considers Turkey as a safe third country for applicants for international protection originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Somalia. To the extent that inadmissible applicants are not allowed to enter Turkey, the Commission considers that Article 38(4) of the Directive should also be applied to these applications and access to the asylum procedure should be granted on the basis of their merits.

The EU remains committed to the full implementation of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, which is the main framework for cooperation between the EU and Turkey on migration issues. This partnership is based on mutual trust and action, which requires commitment and continuous efforts from all sides. The Commission has repeatedly called for the resumption of returns from Greece to Turkey.

Together with seven other MEPs from our group, I asked the Commission on 1 October 2021 whether it considered Poland's imposition of a state of emergency and refusal to allow asylum procedures at the border to be compatible with EU law. We also asked what measures the Commission was taking regarding illegal pushbacks and whether it was examining whether the deployment of EU agencies in Latvia and Lithuania was compatible with the legal framework. The Commission replies that it condemns the actions of Belarus, but this was not at all in question. The Commission also states that Member States must of course comply with EU law, but that the Commission does not have the power to enforce certain measures in the event of violations. The Commission does not condemn the clear human rights violations by Member States, but at least Mrs Johansson states that the principle of non-refoulement applies, even if it is not stated that states such as Poland obviously do not comply with it.

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

Our request

Subject: Provisional measures concerning the situation of asylum seekers in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania

Following a series of legislative changes in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, security forces there have reportedly prevented dozens of asylum seekers from entering and applying for asylum at the EU border with Belarus, resulting in several deaths. On September 8, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a preliminary decision ordering Lithuania not to return five Afghan asylum seekers to Belarus. According to Reuters, this decision was violated on September 9, 2021. On 27 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights extended its previous interim orders by requiring Poland and Latvia to provide food, care and accommodation to the individuals concerned, as well as allowing them access to lawyers.

1. whether the Commission considers that the state of emergency imposed in the respective countries, the legislative amendments and the subsequent measures taken by Poland, Latvia and Lithuania comply with the Schengen acquis and EU asylum law, and in particular with the provisions requiring Member States to grant access to asylum procedures, including at the border?

2. what action the Commission has taken following the interim measures, in particular with regard to the deportation of persons by the Lithuanian authorities on 9 September 2021?

3. whether the Commission has examined whether the presence of EU agencies in Latvia and Lithuania is compatible with the legal frameworks under which the agencies must operate?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 3.12.2021:

The Commission strongly condemns the instrumentalisation of migrants for political purposes by Belarus. It is in continuous dialogue with the national authorities of Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, including on national emergency laws and their compatibility with EU law.

The Commission is aware of various interim measures adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the exceptional situation at the border with Belarus in several cases against Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.

The Commission does not have the power to enforce interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. In the management of external borders and in the application of the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code[1] Member States are obliged to guarantee the right of access to an international protection procedure and to respect the principle of non-refoulement in line with the Union acquis on asylum and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Commission is also in close contact with international human rights organisations and the EU agencies to ensure that each agency provides the necessary assistance to the Member States concerned within its respective mandate.

---

[1] Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L77, 23.3.2016, p.1).