Category: Flight and migration

The European Parliament voted with a broad and cross-party majority in favour of my report on border procedures at the EU's external borders voted in favour. The demand is that fundamental and human rights be respected in asylum procedures and that compliance be monitored.

The European Parliament is thus showing its stance in the face of increasing restrictions on fundamental and human rights at the EU's external borders. It is a great success that a broad cross-party majority has found a compromise and is showing the will to find common solutions even on difficult issues. The broad cross-party majority calls for fundamental and human rights to be respected in asylum procedures and for compliance to be monitored. MEPs condemn illegal pushbacksand are concerned about the great lack of information, legal aid and support for protection seekers in border procedures and denied access of civil society organisations.

I welcome the fact that the vast majority of Members support our call for independent monitoring of the human rights situation at external borders. In all the Member States surveyed, people have been detained in border procedures, although detention on grounds of origin or on the basis of the asylum application is inadmissible. We call for fundamental and human rights to be put back at the heart of the asylum system.

Problems with border procedures

Boundary procedure means that EU member states examine the asylum applications of people seeking protection directly at their own borders and detain them there for the time being. In concrete terms, this practice leads to a situation like on the Greek islands, where people are sometimes stuck for years because their applications are simply not examined. Because of such conditions, the border procedures are also extremely controversial.

In current binding EU law, Member States can apply border procedures in a limited number of cases. The European Commission has now proposed mandatory border procedures in its recently published proposal for a new Pact on Asylum and Migration. The Commission wants to establish asylum applications at the EU's external borders as a new standard.  

Although the EU Commission wants to expand border procedures, it has never evaluated how border procedures are currently implemented. The study commissioned by the European Parliament, which provides the factual basis for this report, shows that border procedures do not currently contribute to the proper screening of asylum applications.

Findings of the report

When an asylum application is lodged at the border or in a transit zone, current EU law allows Member States to examine the application in these places under certain conditions. However, the study found that the term „border procedure“ is insufficiently and imprecisely defined in EU asylum law. This leads to different practices in the Member States examined, but similar problems arise everywhere vis-à-vis applicants in the examination of protection claims in border procedures. Border procedures are of particular concern with regard to their impact on fundamental rights and procedural guarantees.

Under EU law, people must be given the opportunity to apply for asylum at the border. However, at many of the EU's external borders, there are cases where persons seeking protection are refused entry or returned without their application being examined and asylum claims registered.

In their application, border procedures are often based on the legal fiction of non-entry. This has serious consequences for asylum seekers, as they are often denied entry for the duration of the border procedure. (de facto) be taken into detention. Such detention in some cases occurs without Member States categorising the stay in the border procedure as detention, so that asylum seekers detained in a border procedure do not even have access to basic procedural guarantees, while conditions at the borders are often inadequate.

Applicants should have the right under international and EU law to enter the territory of the Member State and not be detained for the sole reason that they wish to make an asylum application. If detention occurs, it must always be as short as possible and based on an individual judicial assessment as to its necessity, with the right to appeal.

In the case of large numbers of arrivals, such as on the Greek islands, these border procedures amount to inhumane conditions to which applicants are subjected over a long period of time. 

No adequate protection of vulnerable persons

It is also worrying that Member States do not have adequate mechanisms in place to identify unaccompanied minors, children and persons with special needs in order to exempt them from the border procedure. Research shows that all countries surveyed lack adequate and effective mechanisms to identify those in need of protection. This can also be traumatising, particularly for children, and raises serious questions about compliance with the best interests of the child. Furthermore, the reports describe significant problems with procedural safeguards in all Member States examined, which are contrary to EU law.

Applicants must be informed about their right to apply for international protection and about the different steps of the procedure, and they must be granted effective access to organisations and persons that support them. This is lacking in practice, although many Member States provide for the right to free legal assistance and access for civil society in national law. Short time limits and (de facto) detention often prevent effective access to legal aid. Asylum seekers are unable to contact a lawyer due to a lack of communication tools, insufficient time given to lawyers to prepare, or a complete lack of qualified lawyers. Non-governmental organisations often cannot fill the gap because they have limited or no access to facilities at the borders. Often there are no interpreters available.

Dilemma of border procedures

Border procedures are characterised by the dilemma of insufficient time for a fair procedure and the need to minimise time by detaining applicants. They therefore do not contribute to the objectives of the Asylum Procedures Directive, which aims to grant people international protection in a fair and expeditious procedure. 

Therefore, Member States should not be obliged to apply border procedures as a standard procedure for examining asylum applications, as on the one hand they cannot ensure a fair procedure and on the other hand they often violate the fundamental rights of applicants by detaining them for long periods of time. Exceptions where the border procedure can be used to examine asylum applications should be in a limited number of simple cases, e.g. where applicants have already been granted international protection in another (Member) State.

With Brexit, the general Freedom of movement between the EU and the UK, without a precise set of rules having been adopted to date. From 01/01/2021, all border crossings will be subject to existing EU and UK immigration laws. Of the latter, there will be visas for short-term stays, as well as regulations for the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes.

Labour migration and service-related border crossings

An new, points-based migration system The UK's new migration system regulates entry criteria for skilled and border workers and people without citizenship who have lived in the UK for a long time. The new migration system distinguishes between skilled workers:inside and Low-skilled. While the former certain criteria there is no visa facilitation for the latter. From now on, their work is to be carried out only by British or Irish citizens or by people who already have a visa. (pre-)settled Enjoy Status. 

As settled is considered to be someone who has already lived in the UK for more than 5 years. Those affected will be granted unrestricted leave to remain. Those who have lived in the UK for less than 5 years are considered to be pre-settled and, upon reaching the 5-year mark, can settled-Apply for Status. Applications to obtain a respective status must be submitted by 30.06.21 to the  EU Settlement Scheme be put. 

EU citizens no longer preferred

EU citizens are no longer favoured by the new system. From now on, the same rules will apply to all people without British citizenship. Skilled workers outside the European Economic Area will particularly benefit from this. Compared to the previous Tier 2 (General) Visa is the new Skilled Worker Visa The minimum qualification and salary requirements were lowered, the annual cap on the number of work visas was suspended, and the labour market test was abolished. The latter required preference to be given to workers from the European Economic Area over others, even if they were better qualified. From now on, all applicants, regardless of their origin and immigration status, are to be given preference in the allocation of jobs. on equal terms become 

Since 01.01.2021, the EU and the UK are considered as respective Third countriesThe situation of cross-border workers and EU citizens who have been living in Great Britain for a long time and vice versa will be further complicated by the withdrawal agreement are protected. This guarantees EU citizens legally resident in the UK and British citizens legally resident in any of the 27 EU Member States at the end of the transition period, as well as their family members, broadly the same rights as they had before the UK left the EU: they can continue to live, study, work and travel freely between the UK and the EU. 

Border crossers:inside, the are from the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein, live outside the UK, worked in the UK until 31.12.20 and work in the UK at least once a year can online a free border work permit (Frontier Worker Permit) apply. Family members are not covered here. 

To open Questions about travel and work arrangements to answer the question, the British government has Brexit Checker set up.

The situation for Fugitives

However, the new system does not refer to Protection seekers and omits important issues. The UK's departure from the Dublin system and the lack of a post-Dublin agreement in particular are causing uncertainty, as the UK continues to refuse to adopt the previous points. UK and France already agreed on measures to prevent uncontrolled crossings of the English Channel in November 2020. If no agreement is reached between the EU and the UK, further bilateral agreements are expected, in particular on family reunification and the prevention of illegal migration.

This will be particularly problematic for asylum seekers and their families in the EU and the UK: the current lack of clarity due to a lack of agreement between the EU and the UK would be exacerbated by bilateral agreements.Even if we reject the Dublin system and the responsibility of the country of first entry that goes with it, and instead advocate a a fair European asylum system demand: Without Dublin, much of the UK's family reunification would have been impossible. According to Infomigrants from now on, these are only possible if refugee status or subsidiary protection has already been granted. Reunification for unaccompanied minors are now only possible with their parents.To reach the UK, many protection seekers most likely have no other way than via traffickers and dangerous attempts to cross the sea, where many people are already drowning. 

Parliament must push for legal entry for protection seekers

Parliament must therefore press for this, that Arrangements are made immediately to provide legal means for those seeking protection and their dependants to reach the UK.. Unresolved questions on family reunification must be answered promptly and with due regard for the needs of the persons concerned. In addition, clarity must be provided on outstanding Dublin procedures. 

Also the situation of protection seekers in the United Kingdom must be followed up. There have already been complaints about inefficient asylum procedures in the UK. Now there are fears that there will be further delays in the process, as well as detentions and rejections of asylum seekers' claims in the UK. The government's aim is to discourage migration to the UK by limiting access to healthcare, work and even accommodation. No importance is attached to the integration of asylum seekers in order to encourage 'voluntary return'. Here, the government relies on the implementation of its own programme, largely independent of the EU. Instead of designing fair entry conditions for protection seekers, the focus is on the professional specialisation of people and their usefulness for the British labour market. There are fears of increasing vulnerability of those affected and disregard for fundamental human rights.

In Lipa, hundreds of people are currently seeking shelter and are freezing. The Bosnian armed forces have put up at least a few winter tents in the past few days, but they are nowhere near enough for all the people. There should be take at least three monthsuntil the camp is ready. As it looks at the moment, the people will freeze until then. 

The EU Commission admonishes Bosnia-Herzegovina, but remains silent on the illegal pushbacks by the EU state of Croatia, because of which so many people are stuck in Bosnia in the first place. It is somewhat hypocritical for the EU Commission to draw Bosnia-Herzegovina's attention to European values, while the situation on the Greek islands is no better and people are stranded in Bosnia because of the EU's isolationist policy.

I have written an overview of the current situation in Bosnia here: 

When hundreds of thousands of people arrived via the Balkan route in 2015 and 2016, Bosnia and Herzegovina was little affected. Most of those seeking protection initially arrived in Hungary via northern Macedonia and Serbia. Only with the erection of fences and unlawful sealing-off practices in Southeastern Europe did Bosnia-Herzegovina become relevant as a transit country towards Western and Central Europe from 2017 onwards.

To date, Bosnia and Herzegovina has not managed to provide decent accommodation for the approximately 7000 refugees currently in the country. Almost all of them are in transit, hardly any of them want to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main countries of origin of the people are Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina's regionally and ethnically divided political environment, conflicts arose between different parts of the country and cantons due to the accommodation of the people. The Serb-Bosnian dominated entity Republika Srpska covers 49 per cent of the country's territory and categorically rejects the accommodation of protection seekers. The other part of the country, the Federation, is divided into 10 cantons, in which mostly Bosniaks or Bosnian Croats are in the majority. The cantons also refuse to accept refugees. The conflict ultimately led to most of the refugees ending up in the city of Bihać and the surrounding area in the canton of Una-Sana.

Bosnian border canton refuses to accept refugees in completed camp

However, the canton of Una-Sana and the local authorities are not ready to accept more people. Bihać is home to the Bira camp, which could accommodate up to 1500 people until September 2020. However, the city had the camp closed and has since refused to provide more places. The opinion has prevailed among the population and the city administration that Bihać has done enough after more than three years and that it is now the turn of other cities, cantons and parts of the country. Here, right-wing groups repeatedly attack volunteers and the police regularly use extreme brutality against refugees.

Other camps in Bosnia and Herzegovina are Borići (capacity 580) and Sedra (430) at Bihać and Ušivak (800) near Sarajevo, where families and unaccompanied minors are accommodated. In Blažuj (2400) near Sarajevo and Miral (700) near Bihac, mainly single men are accommodated. The situation in the camps run by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is often poor. There can be no talk of meaningful measures against the spread of Corona. However, at least certain basic standards are met.

Last winter, there was already an escalating dispute between the city of Bihać and the central administration in Sarajevo. At that time, hundreds of people were dumped at the former Vučjak landfill site near Bihać and threatened to freeze to death there in winter. At that time, it was still possible to avert that the people have to spend the winter in these absolutely undignified conditions. On 10 December 2019, most of them were brought to a former barracks near Sarajevo.

Unacceptable situation in Lipa

This winter, that was no longer possible. The current disaster in Lipa was foreseeable. Lipa is a village 25 kilometres south of Bihać, uninhabited since the Bosnian war and accessible only by dirt roads. There is no electricity, running water or heating, although the village is at around 750 metres and can get very cold in winter.

The Lipa camp was set up on a makeshift basis on 21 April and was intended as an emergency solution to accommodate up to 1000 people during the corona pandemic. It was not supposed to continue operating after the autumn. The Bosnian Council of Ministers decided on 21 December that people would first be moved back from Lipa to Bira in Bihac until a camp for up to 1500 people could be set up in Lipa. The IOM decided on 23 Dec to close Lipa because it was not winterized. However, Una-Sana Canton refused to accommodate people in the towns and Bira remains empty.

Then, on Dec. 23, a large part of the Lipa camp burned down and most people had to sleep crammed into a large summer tent and build an open fire to avoid freezing to death. Various media outlets reported that residents had set the fire themselves. However, local police say that while they are investigating in that direction, they have no circumstantial evidence of that yet. Currently it is not known who started the fire.

Right-wing protests against admission

On 29 December, about 700 people were picked up from Lipa by buses to take them to a barracks in Bradina, halfway between Sarajevo and Mostar. There, however, there were protests by the population, which is why the twenty buses went back and brought the people seeking protection back to Lipa.

The Council of Ministers decided on 31 December that Bihac and the Canton of Una-Sana should reopen the Bira camp, which in turn led to protests by hundreds of people in Bihac who blocked the road to the camp and some of whom threatened to set fire to the camp if refugees were brought there again.

So the shelter seekers were brought back to Lipa. In the freezing cold they slept in self-made plastic huts and thin tents on the bare floor. The head of Bosnia and Herzegovina's immigration office now says it will take four months to turn Lipa into a permanent camp with electricity and water. In the meantime, the Bosnian armed forces have erected a few heated army tents with money from the Bosnian budget, but not everyone can fit in them at the same time.

Double standards of the EU Commission

The EU Commission is demanding that Bosnia treat refugees with dignity. That's true, but it's hard to beat the double standards: Those fleeing the life-threatening conditions in Bosnia are mistreated and turned away by EU member Croatia. Frontex is watching along with officials from other Member States. Despite this – or precisely because of it – the EU Commission has initiated Croatia's Schengen accession and has so far avoided both infringement proceedings and public criticism.

The EU Commission refuses to acknowledge the reality and, even in response to repeated requests, has refused to admit that European law and fundamental human rights are being systematically broken at the Croatian external EU border. The Commission thus prefers to deny the truth and tolerate the daily violation of the law than to guarantee people access to asylum procedures in the EU based on the rule of law.

In addition, the EU has provided Croatia with money to establish a monitoring mechanism at the border, but this money has not been earmarked. Commission staff even tried to conceal this from Parliament, as research by the Guardian suggests. The systematic violation of the law does not stop the German government from continuing to give away material to the Croatian border police.

In recent years, the EU has transferred a total of more than 85 million euros to Sarajevo to care for refugees. Most of the money went to the IOM. Following the fire in Lipa, a further EUR 3.5 million is to be made available.

Even this money will not solve the problem in the long term. It is a political problem. Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't want to house people in a humane way. Croatia is pursuing a brutal and illegal policy of sealing itself off, which leads to the mistreatment of refugees and because of which they are stuck in Bosnia in the first place. The EU Commission, in turn, refuses to even acknowledge this reality. This is all also a policy of deterrence. That is why people are currently stuck and freezing in Bosnia. 

The situation of those seeking protection in Bosnia thus also arises from the actions of the EU, at whose borders pushbacks are carried out and which at least tolerates this situation. Thus, the EU bears a share of responsibility for the deplorable conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Press release on the EU meeting of interior ministers on asylum
on 14.12. 2020

At today's EU Conference of Interior Ministers, the European Interior Ministers will discuss, among other things, the proposal for a European migration and asylum pact.

My comment:

"The strategy of the German Council presidency has failed. It wanted to force a European solution by demanding that the suffering at the external borders only be eliminated by European consensus. Now we continue to have suffering, chaos and violence against those seeking protection, but still no solution. If you want to reach the finish line at some point, you can't always wait for those chaining themselves at the starting point. Especially if you've been waiting for over 5 years.

All Horst Seehofer has to show for EU asylum policy is a progress report without any progress. The member states continue to disagree on key points. The German Council Presidency has made no progress towards a common European asylum system. Instead, we are facing another winter of unheated tents and illegal violence by the authorities against those seeking protection. In order to put an end to these undignified conditions, we don't need a new pact, but rather the enforcement of EU law. It needs member states to step forward and show that we won't let protection seekers freeze to death or be put down in Europe because we haven't yet found consensus in warm offices."

In 2016, the EU and Afghanistan signed the Joint Way Forward Agreement during the Brussels Donor Conference. The aim is to facilitate deportations to Afghanistan.

It is an informal, non-binding legal instrument, and the European Parliament was not involved in its agreement. Because the agreement expired on 6 October this year, the EU wants to negotiate a two-year extension until the end of 2020. 

Afghanistan has been rocked by war for over 40 years, forcing millions of Afghans to leave their country over the decades. Contrary to the pervasive narrative, however, the vast majority of Afghan refugees have sought shelter in surrounding countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. Thus, Afghanistan represents those worldwide second largest refugee population to civil war-torn Syria. 

People have good reasons to flee Afghanistan. For the second year in a row, Afghanistan was named the "most dangerous country in the world" classified." The reasons for this include the ongoing violent conflicts between the Taliban and the Afghan government, as well as regular terrorist attacks on civilians. Thus died in 2019 over 3,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 were seriously injured.

Therefore, the recognition rate of Afghan refugees in the EU last stood at 58% in August this year. However, the recognition rates in the individual member states vary drastically. For example, the recognition rate of Afghan refugees is in Italy 94% and in Bulgaria 4%. In many media and also in the EU Commission, there is constant talk of "illegal migrants and economic migrants", although the majority are refugees fleeing terror and have a very realistic claim to protection under EU legislation. Also the The German Government continues to take the viewAfghanistan is a country to which one can deport and thus deliberately turns a blind eye to the situation on the ground. Many human rights organisations and lawyers call for the Deportations to Afghanistan as Infringement of the prohibition of non-refoulement laid down by law (non-refoulement): in other words, people may not be deported to countries where they are threatened with torture or other serious human rights violations.

Deportation to an unknown country

Furthermore, the Joint Way Forward Agreement ignores the reality of Afghan refugees. As already mentioned, many Afghans live in the surrounding countries and have been doing so for decades, so that there are repeated deportations of refugees who have not yet left Afghanistan. have never set foot in and have to find their way around in a completely foreign country. In addition, despite official requirements and international and EU legislation, there are more and more reports of Deportations of young women and children who are abandoned in the streets of Kabul and thus abandoned to a fate of destitution and renewed flight. Moreover, time and again the Suspicion expressed that financial development assistance to the Afghan Government linked to deportations will. We do not need more deportations to Afghanistan, but rather a a better European asylum systemSecondly, there is a need to ensure that protection seekers are granted their rights, for example by introducing equal recognition quotas across the EU, based on the actual situation on the ground. Secondly, informal agreements must also complied with the law for example, the non-refoulement ban and the non-refoulement of persons in need of special protection, also in recognition of the complexity of Afghan migration. In addition, financial development aid must under no circumstances be tied to deportations. Last but not least, the successor programme must be adopted in a legally binding manner in democratic agreement with the European Parliament and monitored through regular evaluations.

Peace negotiations between government and Taliban

For decades, the Afghan people have longed for an end to violence and conflict, and never before have the Afghan government and the Taliban sat down to negotiate a possible peace. Both sides seem to have realized that there is no military solution can give. 

Thus, on 29 February 2020, the Doha Agreement was reached, in which agreement was reached on the initiation of intra-Afghan peace negotiations. Particular attention was paid to ensuring that the negotiations take place without outside influence from states such as Russia or the US. Despite the forthcoming negotiations, Afghanistan has continued to be affected in recent months by above-average violence and many people died, although the population had hoped for a ceasefire. In particular, the last five weeks before the start of the negotiations were described by experts as the most difficult. most dangerous weeks in the last five years in terms of the quantity and brutality of violence. The Doha Agreement is also accompanied by the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of the US troop presence, as this is a basic condition for the Taliban to participate in the peace talks. Currently, about 4,500 of the original 13,000 troops remain in the country. Nevertheless, the election of Joe Biden as US president now raises many unanswered questions, as the Doha deal was negotiated under the Trump administration and Biden had said during the campaign that he wanted to maintain a small troop presence in Afghanistan. 

Now, the peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government began in Doha on September 12, 2020. The start of the substantive negotiations has been delayed since then, as they have so far been dominated by structural and procedural conflicts and disputes over the agenda are characterized. The stakes are particularly high for women: from 1996 to 2001, women lived under lock and key during the Taliban regime and were only allowed to leave their homes when accompanied by a male guardian. Since 2001, with the invasion of US troops, the situation has changed and women have increasingly taken part in social life again. Today, Afghan civil society thrives on committed, educated women and the big concern is that Taliban involvement in government would undo all the work of the last 20 years in this area. The Afghan government has a total of only four women at the negotiating table, while the Taliban are all men.

It is impossible to predict the next steps of the peace negotiations, but the civilian population is longing for a CeasefireHowever, this is on condition that fundamental rights are not compromised in the peace process and that criminals from the ranks of the Taliban and the Afghan governments are finally prosecuted. Despite the peace talks, attacks on civilians continue, such as the bloodbath at Kabul University on 2 November. 

Terrorist attack in Kabul University – Attack on the future of Afghanistan

On the same day as the attack in Vienna, there was a terrorist attack on Kabul University. Three gunmen stormed the university and shot at the students. It took the security forces and the arriving military six hours to secure the campus. Twenty-two students were killed and 27 others were injured. badly hurt. Even if those responsible have not yet been clearly identified, this is driving a wedge into the peace negotiations, which are already getting off to a difficult start. There are initial calls to boycott the negotiations in Doha, for example under the hashtag #BoycottDohaTalks or in the form of protests against the government, which has been unable to protect the young people. One of the demands is not to make a deal with the Taliban. It remains to be seen how the chain of violence will continue and how it will affect the peace negotiations.

Afghan refugees in Europe

The situation of Afghan refugees in Europe is fatal. Half of all refugees on the Greek islands comes from Afghanistan. It is widely known that the conditions in the completely overcrowded camps as well as in the new Moria are absolutely inhumane and untenable. Many have been there for many months or even years, some children were even born there. They are either waiting to apply for asylum or for it to be processed. The application for family reunification, for example, turns out to be a long, rocky road for many Afghan families, because the Federal Office for Migration and Asylum in Germany often rejects such applications unjustly and the people concerned usually lack access to legal counsel to appeal. 

If their application for asylum is granted, the Greek authorities transfer some of the protection seekers to mainland Greece, but without housing them. Instead, many Afghan refugees and families live in homelessness on the streets of Athens, receiving only makeshift assistance from local non-governmental organizations. But it is precisely this assistance that is proving particularly difficult at the moment, as Athens is once again in lockdown and aid workers can only distribute meals and other goods in secret.

Furthermore, in October of this year, Greece and Afghanistan agreed on a Memorandumwhich is supposed to facilitate the deportation of "illegal migrants" to Afghanistan in the future – a shocking development considering the dangerous situation in Afghanistan. Also the situation on the Balkan route is a human rights disaster. The Afghan refugees there are part of a cruel game of cat and mouse. They try to enter the EU via Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, only to be brutally deported back to Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Croatian border police or in so-called chain deportations from Italy, Austria or Slovenia. For years now, reports have been accumulating of Torture and violence by Croatian border police officerswhich are repeatedly rejected by the Croatian government as spurious. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, many refugees live in empty houses or in the cold, wet forests, where they sleep under tarpaulins – including families with children. Just as in Greece, humanitarian workers are largely prohibited from assisting refugees. Especially with the upcoming winter, another humanitarian catastrophe is looming.

Finally, we're getting somewhere: The state of Berlin is suing the Federal Ministry of the Interior so that Berlin can finally take in refugees. The lawsuit is promising, because Interior Minister Horst Seehofer wants to prevent the admission despite legal leeway. You can find more information about this in the Press release of the Berlin state government.

For those who want to delve more deeply into the legal framework: I have a Expert opinion commissioned, which proves that Seehofer may not so simply refuse his consent for the admission.