Category: Flight and migration

I have commissioned a study ( German / English), which examines which legal obligations and competences the European Union has in sea rescue. This also applies to EU military operations.

In March 2020, the EU decided to launch the Marine Emission Irinito monitor arms smuggling into Libya using satellite information, at sea and from the air. This military operation is taking place in the Eastern Mediterranean, far from the central flight route across the Mediterranean. This extremely deadly route is the only way for many people seeking protection to reach the EU. 

Irini has so far not a single person rescued from distress at sea. The predecessor mission Sophia, on the other hand, rescued around 45,000 people from 2015. However, under pressure from EU states, the ships now bypass the migration routes so as not to have to rescue people. Nevertheless, the German government is in favour of continuing Irini. Currently 19 German soldiers are participating in the mission. In the past, doubts have also arisen as to whether the mission can even achieve its goal of enforcing the arms embargo to Libya.

People continue to drown in the Mediterranean

Although fewer and fewer people are fleeing across the central Mediterranean, there has been a steady increase in death and missing person rates. In the first three months of 2021 alone are already over 300 people drowned in the Mediterranean. 

It is often argued that people would no longer put themselves in danger if there were no sea rescue. But in reality, the conditions in Libya, especially for people from sub-Saharan Africa, are so inhumane that people continue to flee. Even without rescue at sea, people board unseaworthy boats in the hope of reaching land on their own.. Even without rescue at sea, it is even more perilous for many people to reach Malta or Italy by rubber dinghy than it already is. The widespread accusation of a pull effect through civilian sea rescue missions has also already been contradicted in previous studies.

Rescue at sea is criminalised instead of supported 

So far, it is mainly civilian organisations that are carrying out sea rescue operations. In doing so, they are increasingly criminalised by EU states, as the political interest is primarily focused on preventing people from fleeing the inhumane conditions in Libya. To this end, the Libyan coast guard is being financed, which uses Frontex reconnaissance aircraft to bring people back to Libya from their flight at sea and intern them in camps. This practice has been described in several expert opinions as contrary to international law.

The European Commission claims that sea rescue operations outside its Area of expertise This is also confirmed by the European Council. It is the task of the littoral states to carry out sea rescue operations. Unfortunately, a governmental EU sea rescue mission with the participation of the Member States is not realistic in the next few years, although it is foreseeable that people will continue to drown in the Mediterranean. The Member States will not agree on a mission and it would be too easy to keep calling for things that will not happen.

EU Commission can step in and finance sea rescue operations

But there is a way out. If the EU Commission is serious about its repeatedly stated intentions to support sea rescue, it could provide financial support to non-governmental organisations and thus set up a civilian European Sea Rescue Mission. The agreement of the Member States is not required for this. This is also stated in the expert opinion commissioned by me from the law firm Redeker/Dahs/Sellner: "According to the current legal situation, financial assistance to non-governmental organisations and international institutions working to rescue refugees in distress at sea is possible, in particular, pursuant to Article 214 (3) TFEU in conjunction with the Regulation on humanitarian aid (Regulation (EC) No 1257/96)."

In short, the European Commission could fund a non-governmental sea rescue mission and thus ensure effective sea rescue. This has now also been proven by the comprehensive legal opinion.

Afghanistan, ahead of Syria, is considered to be the most most dangerous country in the world. Despite this, deportations to Afghanistan are taking place, and despite this, the EU has once again adopted an agreement that is intended to further facilitate deportations to Afghanistan. This document, drawn up between the Commission and the Council, was signed at the beginning of February without the EU Parliament having any say in the matter. 

New Afghanistan Agreement

The new repatriation agreement JDMC (Joint Declaration on Migration Cooperation) replaces the Joint Way Forward (JWF) agreement negotiated in 2016. In terms of content, the new agreement is a further step backwards for those seeking protection from the country, which has been ravaged by war and economic crisis. In my November article I explained the JWF and its importance for deportations, as well as the situation for protection seekers from Afghanistan. Numerous civic organizations opposed the extension of the JWF agreement. The new return agreement is based on the JWF agreement, but there are a number of changes:

Thus, the definition of vulnerable groups more narrowly defined. From now on, deportations of sick people should only be suspended for people who suffer from a very serious illness and - this concretion is new – cannot be treated in Afghanistan. The latter will probably be very difficult to prove in concrete cases. The possibility for deportations will also be facilitated, as the definition of a family unit will be limited to parents and minor children. In addition, all EU member states are to participate in deportations to Afghanistan, regardless of any bilateral agreements with the civil war country. The agreement allows for joint deportations of up to 50 people per flight, with a total of up to 500 people to be deported per month in the future, although this number can be increased. In the previous agreement, there was an unofficial agreement that there would be no more than one flight per week from Europe. This will now be significantly increased, but it can be assumed that the Afghan Government will not accept a figure of more than 500 per week. 

While the JWF agreement is valid for two years, the new framework is unlimited in time through the JDMC. Instead, the new agreement can only be suspended after consultation and at a certain point in the year.

tightened security

After the end of the first round of negotiations in Afghanistan in December 2020, the Doha peace talks resumed at the end of February 2021, but progress is very slow. There is no ceasefire and the security situation is increasingly deteriorating. Violence is at its highest level in the last 20 years, and in recent months there has been an increase in targeted attacks on journalists, human rights activists and civil servants. The EU Commissioner for Conflict Management, Janez Lenarčič, recently stated in his report that Travelogue to the civil war-torn country, that the conflict was permeating every corner of the country, causing millions of civilians to be displaced and seek refuge inside and outside the country. Afghanistan has the second largest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in the world. In total, almost half the population depend on humanitarian aid. Without it, 16.9 million people in Afghanistan would be at risk of starvation. The pandemic and natural disasters further exacerbate the situation. The country is suffering one of the biggest food crises in the world.

EU states still want to deport

Even the sick and people undergoing treatment are not protected from deportation. Only in February, against widespread protest, Germany introduced a further Collective deportation of 26 people to Afghanistan, although the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg had previously ruled in a Case-by-case decision declared a deportation to the country unlawful in connection with the current coronalage. The reason for this was the impossibility of meeting the most basic needs of food, shelter and hygiene. But the deportations continue. In 2020, the recognition rate of asylum applicants from Afghanistan was about 53 %However, it varies greatly between the different Member States and is thus like a lottery for people who have made it to Europe under the most difficult conditions. For example, it was in Bulgaria at 1%, in the Netherlands at 42%. If they return to Afghanistan, the chances of renewed immediate displacement are very high.

What can the European Parliament do?

The European Parliament has no say in the drafting and adoption of the agreement and can only resort to general rights of control. At the same time, it should be emphasised that, at least in Germany, deportations are mostly carried out on the basis of a bilateral agreement with Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I will try to get the issue on the EP agenda in the coming weeks and organise an exchange with the Commission. I would like to know what conditions are attached to EU funds for Afghanistan and where the money goes. In particular, chain deportations, in which people are deported to Afghanistan who are not even from the country, must be prevented. Only one Fraction of the refugees from Afghanistan come to Europe at all, a large part is taken in by the neighbouring countries Pakistan (1.42 million in 2020) and Iran (951000 in 2020). – of a total of 2.7 million refugees These countries must be supported by the EU, we need a better distribution of responsibility, which is also called for in the Global Compact for Refugees. Progressive and people-friendly solutions should be highlighted and mobilised. Afghanistan is not and will not remain safe in the near future, which is why we must continue to prevent deportations to the country.

There are too few legal migration opportunities to the EU. This is a particular problem for refugees, who often have to risk their lives to apply for asylum. 

Because the EU fails to create legal escape and migration routes, people die trying to reach Europe. The EU's externalisation policy is designed to prevent people from entering European soil well before Europe's borders. This makes it very difficult for those seeking protection to apply for asylum in the EU. Despite some assurances to create increased opportunities for legal entry, little has been done in this regard. In the following, I will explain the options available to people who want to migrate legally to the EU. 

In principle, there is the possibility to enter with the "EU Blue Card" or a valid visa. Those who do not have a valid visa or the EU Blue Card can apply for asylum. 

In the year 2019 2.9 million people from third countries were granted residence permits. 41% of them obtained a work permit, 27% came to the EU for family reasons and 14% of people for educational purposes. In addition, there were 631 579 asylum applications. Legal migration accounts for the largest share of migration to the EU. In contrast, the number of illegalised border crossings is only 141 700 cases.  

In migration policy, the EU and the Member States share some responsibilities, which makes it difficult to introduce EU-wide rules on migration. While the EU can set entry requirements and residence conditions for people from third countries, it is up to the member states to implement them. They can determine how many people from third countries they grant entry and work permits to. The EU can promote the admission and integration of third-country nationals through appropriate frameworks and incentives, but national rules apply. 

The EU Blue Card 

The EU blue card was introduced in 2008 and adapted in 2017 after some shortcomings. This accelerated procedure is intended to create attractive conditions for highly qualified third-country nationals. Highly qualified persons with a university degree and an employment contract in Germany with a minimum annual income of €50,800 can enter the EU and work here with the EU Blue Card; the same applies to highly qualified persons from an area where there is a shortage of skilled workers in the EU with an employment contract with a minimum annual salary of €39,624.
More information on the Blue Card can be found at Infomigrants and in the Visaguide.

Visas

Who has a valid Visa can enter the country by plane and check in after the Schengen Borders Code move within the Schengen area. In this case, a request for asylum can be expressed orally. Those who were able to enter without a valid passport must go through an airport procedure by the police in the transit area. In the case of a refusal, an entry ban is issued. This can be appealed against. If the airport procedure or an objection lodged against it is positive, an asylum procedure is initiated.

Humanitarian visas

In addition, Member States may issue humanitarian visas to people who are not yet recognised as refugees. These can legally enter the Member State and apply for asylum here. A common European framework for this does not yet exist.

In the case of positively decided asylum applications within the meaning of the Geneva Refugee Commission or subsidiary protection, people can be relocated from one Member State to another. Here, people who have been granted international protection are entitled to similar rights as in the country of first entry. This procedure is known as Relocation known.  

An overview of the possibilities for persons seeking protection in Germany to obtain a residence permit can be found at here. Infomigrants describes the legal migration possibilities to the EU in English.

Labour migration

For the highly qualified, students and scientists, seasonal workers and people moving within companies, there are legal guidelines to facilitate migration. 

For the approximately 100,000 seasonal workers:inside in the EU regulates the Directive 2014/36/EU  the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals. These are particularly employed in the tourism and agricultural sectors. They may legally reside in the EU for a period of between five and nine months in order to work seasonally. During this period, however, their main place of residence must also be in the third country in question. 

The Directive 2014/66/EU regulates the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of a intragroup transfers. Anyone employed outside the EU in an international company can be transferred to a branch or subsidiary within the EU. 

For international trainees, students and scientists, and for Exchange students and volunteers, au pairs and educational travellers applies the Directive (EU) 2016/801. This allows students and academics to remain in the EU for a further nine months after completing their studies or research in order to find work or set up a business. Researchers are also allowed to bring family members to the EU. In the programme Erasmus+ non-EU citizens can also participate. 

Family reunion

If a family member is already legally residing in the EU, family members may join them. The Directive 2003/86/EC sets the framework for this. Thus, spouses, minor children and the children of the spouse may join them. Member States may also allow the reunification of unmarried partners, adult children and dependent parents and grandparents. The reunited family members will receive a residence permit corresponding to the already migrated family member and can apply for an independent permit after a maximum of five years. 

However, Member States may set certain criteria to authorise family reunification. For example, reunification may be linked to financial resources, suitable accommodation and health insurance, as well as "integration measures". In addition, there may be a maximum two-year waiting period. If, in the view of the authorities, there is a risk to public order, public safety or public health, the application may be rejected. Fraudulent cases such as fictitious adoption or fictitious marriage may be punished. If the applicant has been recognised as a refugee, the criteria for granting family reunification are somewhat milder. 

The regulations can be read here. 

Resettlement

"Resettlement means the transfer of third-country nationals in need of international protection from a third country to an EU Member State which will receive them and grant them protection."

A prerequisite for resettlement is that the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) decides that the person qualifies as a refugee under the Geneva Convention and that resettlement is the most appropriate procedure. Stateless people who do not qualify as refugees under the Geneva Convention may also be resettled. After selection by UNHCR, cases are submitted to potential host states, which decide whether to grant or refuse resettlement. The criteria of each member state and the time for resettlement vary.

Those who come to the EU under the resettlement procedure are protected against refoulement to third countries and have rights similar to those of nationals. The same applies to family members. In addition, there is the possibility of obtaining citizenship oneself. 

The European Resettlement Network explains the individual steps in the resettlement procedure and shows possibilities of obtaining a residence permit within the EU via the procedure. 

An overview of the resettlement procedure from the European Parliament's scientific service can be found at EPRS read up.

ARAPs (active refugee admission policies)

In addition, there is the possibility for states to adopt their own active policies for the reception of protection seekers. For example, new reception instruments such as private partnerships and emergency evacuations are currently being tested. Private partnerships are based on private support and funding for protection seekers. Emergency evacuations are linked to more flexible conditions than traditional resettlement procedures and are more likely to lead to temporary protection status. There is also the possibility of coming to Europe through scholarship programmes.

These ARAPS (active refugee admission policies) are voluntary. There is a risk that decisions on the admission of people in need of assistance will be based more on functional criteria than on humanitarian emergencies and that people will potentially experience discrimination. On the other hand, ARAPs can lead to protection seekers receiving protection through safe and legal channels. In addition, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) provides pre- and post-arrival training to promote reception and integration. 

The Escape Research Blog provides an overview of ARAPs and potential weaknesses and research gaps.

Important rights, possibilities and procedures concerning asylum in the EU can be found at here.

Anyone wishing to migrate to the EU to work, study or bring their family together can apply on the EU Immigration Portal inform 

What we demand

Legal routes to the EU need to be expanded and people need to be informed about them. We Greens call for legal and safe migration routes to the EU and flexible arrangements to facilitate family reunification and work and study within the EU for third country nationals.

We are therefore committed to the design of a EU-wide visa system for humanitarian visas a. For example, protection seekers should have more opportunities to apply for visas at embassies and consulates outside the EU so that they can enter the EU legally and safely. 

In addition, we call for a European migration code. This should protect the rights of migrants in the EU. To this end, rights within the EU must be harmonised and new and secure legal channels for migration to the EU must be created, irrespective of the migrants' qualifications and income. In particular, the rights of migrants with low incomes and low qualifications must be expanded, because the value of people is not measured in their economic usability.

There is also a need for agreements with third countries in order to avoid a brain drain in these countries. Instead, balanced partnerships should be concluded. For this, they must be decoupled from further migration control measures and readmission agreements. Partnerships could, for example, facilitate multiple entry visas and expand pilot projects.

The full position paper of the Green Group in the European Parliament on labour migration from third countries is available at here read up. 

Today, February 23, 2021, met for the first time the Frontex investigation team of the European Parliament. It consists of 14 MEPs, of which I am one. The central question is whether the agency has systematically committed human rights violations. In four months' time, the group will present its first report. Even after the first inquiry, the group will continue to look into Frontex.

The accusations against the EU agency Frontex are serious. Greek officials are dragging masses of refugees out to sea and the agency is watching or even actively helping. This is proven by investigative research by independent media.

Frontex shows little interest in reconnaissance so far

On the other hand, there is little interest in reconnaissance at Frontex. Frontex internal documents show that the agency was trying to cover up crimes. Frontex chief Fabrice in particular Leggeri prevented the investigation... and also lied to us MEPs when he was summoned to the European Parliament. The following day, even Frontex's press department had to admit that Leggeri had lied. 

Despite the burden of proof, the Frontex Director continues to claim that he has no knowledge of these incidents and that Frontex is complying with human rights law. However, Leggeri himself has sent questions to the Member States concerned regarding human rights violations. It is therefore not credible that he knows nothing at all. 

Federal police involved in pushback

There are a large number of cases where Frontex is accused of human rights violations. For example, on August 10, 2020, a ship with a German crew stopped and pushed back an inflatable boat carrying refugees. Thus, German federal police officers are also involved in such activities. With the magazine Frontal 21 spoke a federal police officer also about the fact that officials are expected to break existing law and basic human rights. 

On the morning of 10 August 2020, at around 6 a.m., the German ship "DEU CPB 62", dispatched to Frontex, observes a rubber dinghy with about 40 people in Greek waters, not far from the island of Samos. It sails there, stops the boat and informs the Greek coast guard. The coast guard appears a few minutes later and takes over the situation. The German ship leaves the scene. The Greek coastguard's report subsequently states that the people seeking protection on the rubber dinghy had changed course and had returned to Turkish waters. When asked, the Greek officials confirmed that they had carried out "border protection measures to prevent a landing on Samos". 

Frontex observes pushback, but Leggeri does not classify it as a violation of fundamental rights

Another important case occurred on the night of 18-19 April 2020, when a Frontex reconnaissance aircraft flew over the Eastern Mediterranean and observed protection seekers on a Greek Coast Guard vessel and their empty inflatable boat being pulled by the Greek boat. Two hours later, the Frontex aircraft observes the protection seekers being returned to the inflatable boat by the Greek Coast Guard patrol boat, with another speedboat waiting in the immediate vicinity. Frontex also clearly states at this point that there are no Turkish boats in the vicinity. 
A few minutes later, at around 2.45 a.m. on 19 April 2020, the Frontex aircraft takes a picture of the Greek boat pulling the leashed inflatable boat with the protection seekers on board towards Turkish waters. Half an hour later, Frontex observes that the inflatable boat has no engine and the Greek boats move away from the vicinity of the boat. The next afternoon, Greek authorities confirm that the dinghy was spotted by the Turkish coast guard and taken to the Turkish mainland. Frontex officials reported the incident and Fabrice Leggeri turned to the Greek government, However, in the end, the court did not classify the case as a violation of fundamental rights.

Working group to be set up in the European Parliament

The European Parliament's Committee on Home Affairs has summoned Frontex on this several times, but we MEPs have simply been lied to. The committee has submitted written questions, but the answers have been rather modest.

The European Parliament's inquiry group will now examine the available evidence and procedures and answer the question of whether Frontex is disregarding its mandate, contributing to human rights violations and acting contrary to the EU's fundamental values and founding principles. After the initial inquiry, the group will continue to exist to monitor and scrutinise Frontex's activities.

Our goals in the working group

I am glad that the working group was set up on the initiative of the Greens/EFA Group. With my group colleague Tineke Strik, who is responsible for the first report, I will work in the investigation group to investigate the allegations against Frontex. Concrete Green objectives are the following: 

• the drafting of an evidence-based report on the allegations against Frontex

• Recommendations to Frontex to be implemented by the Agency

• A consideration of fundamental rights in the mandates of the Agency

• Changing the working culture at Frontex

• Transparent reporting by Frontex to the public and to the European Parliament, to which it is accountable. 

• an ongoing, transparent review of the work of Frontex 

I am often asked why people on the run do not simply sue in a court of law when their elementary human rights are violated by EU states or Frontex. This question is very legitimate, but not easy to answer. In this text, I will address some key points that make it so difficult for people on the run to claim their rights. 

Human rights are rights that the state guarantees to every individual on its territory or under its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the respective court is always given when state actors such as police, border guards or the army encounter people in the exercise of their duties. State responsibility, on the other hand, is more difficult to prove and assert when EU actors such as Frontex or the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA) act.

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs 

Those who claim a violation of their human rights must first prove their own involvement. In the case of pushbacks, the nature of these acts makes it difficult to prove one's own presence at the scene, as witnesses who are not also perpetrators or victims usually do not exist. Fugitives who are on a boat on the high seas and are pushed back often have no way to provide evidence of their presence on the boat after the fact because, for example, people's cell phones are collected or destroyed, or at least cell phone videos are deleted. Without evidence, an individual case claiming to have been unlawfully „collectively expelled“ or „pushed back“ is unlikely to succeed.

Lack of access to justice 

Access to justice is another early hurdle in the legal action process. If a person is on the territory of the state which that person also accuses of violating the rights, the person concerned can bring such violations before the national court of first/lower instance. The EU legal order allows individuals to bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) once all national remedies in the country concerned have been exhausted, i.e. all instances of the national legal system. Thus, if a person is encountered by the border guards of a state subject to the ECtHR at sea, on territorial or extraterritorial territory, the rights and obligations deriving from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) apply. However, such actions can in fact only be brought if the person concerned is in the infringing state. This is never the case with pushbacks, or at least not until an attempt to cross the border has succeeded.

All EU member states and also associated states are parties to the ECHR. As such, they can be sued before the ECtHR. 

Refugees cannot simply sue Frontex

Things get a bit more complex if, for example, Frontex is the authority that has potentially committed the violation. As an EU agency, an action against it cannot be brought before the ECtHR but only before the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The ECJ, in turn, does not hear individual rights complaints, but rather disputes between organs. So e.g. EU member state against Frontex as EU authority. Moreover, it is not easy for the persons whose rights are violated by the illegal pushback to identify who is actually acting unlawfully in the specific case under the EU flag. The command of the operation can lie with an EU Member State, a third country with a status agreement with the EBCGA or with Frontex itself.

The EU and the individual Member States are bound by the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as EU law, i.e. regulations and directives. Cases brought before the ECJ must be referred to it by the Member States or by the European Commission, the so-called guardian of the Treaties and executive of the EU. The ECJ cannot take action itself on the basis of its own investigations. Since the EU member states currently have no great interest in the European border regime being permanently criticised by the ECJ, referrals to the ECJ on the basis of their own state investigations into Frontex do not take place. In the case of Croatia or Greece, the governments do not even admit that systematic or even individual pushbacks are taking place at all.

Thus, in order for a possible pushback by Frontex against individuals who are on a boat heading towards EU territory to be heard in Luxembourg – the seat of the ECJ –, the person concerned must first be able to prove his or her presence on the boat in question. Secondly, it must be clarified on which territory the pushback took place (usually not the biggest problem) and thirdly, this state must refer the case to the ECJ. 

Lack of clarity about who is actually responsible 

If the pushback took place on the high seas, i.e. not in the territorial waters of a state, then it must also be clarified on what basis Frontex was active there to protect the border. Frontex cannot be active without consultation with the EU Member State whose borders it secures; proceedings before the ECJ must then be initiated by the Member State on whose behalf Frontex was active here.

It is possible for the person concerned to lodge the complaint with Frontex itself. But here too, the evidence described above on the location, competence of the agency, etc. must be provided. Moreover, Frontex is at least ineffective in dealing with complaints.

Regardless of the possibilities and difficulties described above, it is even more complicated to file a lawsuit after a pushback from a third country.

Long and unrealistic legal action 

There are directives and regulations that bind EU member states to certain high standards, including in asylum policy. If rules, such as reception conditions, are violated by EU member states, either the European Commission initiates so-called infringement proceedings against the country to ensure that EU law is properly implemented, or a person suffering from the terrible conditions can initiate proceedings against the country in question for the suffering caused by the conditions. But again, they would have to go through the process of appeals, i.e. they would have to file a lawsuit in Germany with the locally competent administrative court, and if the lawsuit is dismissed, they would then go on to the competent higher administrative court, then to the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Constitutional Court. Only then can the case be referred to the ECtHR, which looks at the case from a human rights perspective and examines whether a country has violated certain ECHR rights of the person bringing the action...

In such individual proceedings, the inhuman, degrading conditions on the ground to which claimants are subjected, e.g. in a reception centre, could be challenged.Although the ECJ takes ECtHR judgments into account as precedents, the EU is not a party to the ECHR, so human rights violations by EU actors cannot be heard by the ECtHR.

Why even third parties hardly have a chance to sue successfully

When it comes to third parties who know about a human rights violation, their chance as human rights defenders, civil society organisations or interested individuals to sue on behalf of the victim is also very low. In the first instance, Member States or the European Commission have access to the Court of Justice of the EU, while the European Court of Human Rights is only accessible once all national remedies have been exhausted. Access for third parties other than the elected legal representative of the persons alleging human rights violations is not allowed without the active participation of the person concerned.

Despite obvious violations of the law, those affected have little chance to sue

In reality, these complex legal constructions mean that people on the run hardly have a chance to accuse those responsible if their basic human rights have been violated. Precisely because refugees are not citizens of an EU state and their fundamental rights are not protected by their states of origin, which is why most of them have to flee in the first place, they are usually defenceless against pushbacks, violence and undignified treatment. The fundamental rights of the United Nations, adopted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do not apply to these people in reality. Their dignity is violated on a daily basis and yet they have hardly any possibility to defend themselves legally. 

_{Photo: European Court of Human Rights © BY-SA 3.0, CherryX}

In order to be able to exercise my parliamentary control function as a Member of the European Parliament, I have the opportunity to put questions to the European Commission. The Commission must answer these questions.
Together with other Members, I put the following questions to the Commission:

Subject: Illegal refoulement by Frontex in the Aegean Sea

The German news magazine "Der Spiegel" today published research entitled "Frontex implicated in illegal pushbacks". The research proves in detail that officials of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) know about the illegal practices of the Greek border guards - and are partly involved in illegal pushbacks in the Aegean Sea themselves. Even though the systematic breaches of the law by Greek authorities have been known or at least obvious for months, Frontex has mostly denied even knowing about these illegal refoulements on the open sea.

The activities of Frontex and the Greek coast guard described in the article refute the Greek government's statements that border protection is being carried out in accordance with international law. Now Frontex is apparently also increasingly involved in the illegal activities.

1. since when has the Commission had information about the illegal practices of the Greek border guards or Frontex in operations at the Greek external EU border?

2. what measures the Commission intends to take to clarify these cases and ensure that international and Union law are complied with by its own agency?

3. whether the Commission is aware that, since March 2020 at the latest, EU Member States have been systematically breaking EU law at the EU's external borders, where people are mistreated and their lives put in danger, or whether the answer to this question also skilfully avoids the reality of the situation?

Answer given by Commissioner Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 11/02/2021:

The Commission takes the allegations of pushback very seriously. Subject to the competences of the European Commission as guardian of the Treaties, national authorities are primarily responsible for the correct transposition and application of EU law. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its concerns about such reports. It has made clear that Member States have border surveillance tasks under the Schengen Borders Code.[1] fully respect fundamental rights, ensure access to international protection and guarantee protection against refoulement in accordance with Union and international law. In this context, the Commission has also urged the Greek authorities to investigate, in accordance with their competence, any alleged wrongdoing. Against this background, it is worth recalling the new migration and asylum package proposed by the Commission, which provides for all Member States to establish an independent monitoring mechanism to ensure the protection of fundamental rights at the external borders. At the formal request of the Commission, an urgent extraordinary meeting of the Management Board of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) was convened on 10 November 2020 to discuss allegations of pushback operations in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Management Board shared the view that there was an urgent need to investigate all aspects of this matter. At the Management Board meeting of 25/26 November 2020, the matter was further discussed and a working group was established to investigate the matter in accordance with the procedure set out in Regulation[2] to further examine the established allocation of responsibilities. A second extraordinary meeting of the Management Board was convened on 9 December 2020 to review the Executive Director's written replies to questions from several members of the Management Board, including the Commission, and more generally to monitor progress in the internal investigation into alleged refoulement of migrants in the Aegean Sea.[3] The European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Secretariat General of the European Parliament are closely involved in this ongoing process and have also addressed oral and written questions to the Executive Director of the Agency. Frontex has also taken steps to fill more quickly the posts of Fundamental Rights Officer and Fundamental Rights Observers provided for in the Agency's founding Regulation.

---

_{[1] Regulation (EU) 2016/399 establishing a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1).}

_{[2] Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard (OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1).}

_{[3] https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/extraordinary-meeting-frontex-management-board-9-december-2020_en}