Question: Use of EU aid to Greece and Italy in the field of asylum

Erik Marquardt on March 4, 2020

Photo: Erik Marquardt

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.
On 04/03/2020, I received answers to the following questions from the Commission:

Question for written answer E-004414/2019 to the Commission

Subject: Questions on the use of EU aid to Greece and Italy in the field of asylum following the European Court of Auditors' report No 24/2019

In its audit report of 13 November2019 on the European Union's support to Greece and Italy in the area of asylum, the European Court of Auditors pointed to a significant discrepancy between the stated objectives and the results achieved, in particular with regard to urgent resettlement and lengthy asylum procedures The funds provided by the EU appear to be inappropriately distributed, leading to inhumane living conditions in the hotspots

  1. How does the Commission explain the discrepancies between objectives and results and how does it intend to remedy them?
  2. How does it explain why Frontex staff are posted to understaffed hotspots while others are severely lacking in resources, and how does it explain that the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is understaffed while Frontex has sufficient staff or is even overstaffed?
  3. Despite their mandate as Members of the European Parliament, several MEPs have been denied access to the Greek hotspots, even though they have been funded from the EU budget, for which Parliament is responsible. How does the Commission explain why it is not possible for MEPs to ascertain the situation on the ground and the use of EU funds, and what will it propose to ensure that all MEPs have access to all reception facilities which receive EU funds?

E-004414/2019 (04.03.2020)
Answer from Commissioner Ylva Johansson
on behalf of the European Commission:

The Commission cannot agree with the conclusions of the Honourable Members on Report No 24/2019 of the European Court of Auditors of 13 November 2019 and refers to its written opinion on specific points of the report[1].

While the management of external borders and asylum procedures is primarily the responsibility of the responsibility of the Member States, the support of the Commission and EU agencies since 2015 has been crucial to the improving migration management in Greece and Italy.

As stated in the Commission's response, the hotspot approach has contributed to the registration, identification and security screening of migrants in the most difficult and difficult and constantly changing circumstances. The Redistribution of refugees from Greece and Italy (involving 25Member States), which has resulted in nearly 100% of those eligible for resettlement being eligible and registered for resettlement were resettled, was a sign of European solidarity[2].

The Commission is now better equipped to provide operational and financial support to Member States under pressure and has provided unprecedented support to provided unprecedented support to Greece and Italy[3].

The Commission agrees with the recommendations of the ECA in its report and is already is already working on their implementation.

With the deployment of officials from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Commission is supporting a flexible combination of permanent and mobile teams to cover disembarkations efficiently.[4]. The staff of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) has been significantly reinforced since 2015 and will be increased up to 500 staff members in the coming years, provided that the Agency is enlarged in accordance with the proposed Regulation on the Asylum Agency[5]. 

[1] Special Report No 24/2019: Time for faster action to close the gap between objectives and results See the Commission's reply, published on the Court's website at https://www.eca.europa.eu/de/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=52087.
[2] See Commission's reply, p. 10 et seq.
[3] See https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/201909_managing-migration-eu-financial-support-to-greece_en.pdf and https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/201905_managing-migration-eu-financial-support-to-italy_en.pdf.
[4] See Commission's reply, p. 3 f.
[5] See also EASO press release of 7 January 2020: https://www.easo.europa.eu/news-events/easo-operations-double-size-year.

Pushbacks in Spain: ECtHR gives a judgement that is far removed from reality

Erik Marquardt on 15 February 2020

Photo: Neonbrand/Unsplash

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the deportation of two refugees without asylum proceedings is lawful. this judgment hardly anyone had reckoned, as the Small Chamber of the ECtHR had decided completely differently in 2017.

The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR claims in the grounds of the judgment that there are legal alternatives to violent, illegal border crossing, which in reality do not exist for Sub-Saharan Africans*, and that overcoming the border installations is in reality the only way to gain access to the Spanish asylum system.

The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR must have been aware of this, at least in part, which is why they argued that access to legal channels is restricted by Morocco, not by Spain, which means that Spain cannot be condemned for this. This is also surprising, since, for example, the UNHCR has explained in detail in the proceedings that there is Spanish influence on this refoulement practice in Morocco.

Another part of the judgment also leads to Lack of understanding among specialist lawyersThe judges argue that the applicants have put themselves in an unlawful situation by using the size of their group and violence to cross the border, which means that they are no longer entitled to a constitutional asylum procedure in Spain.
Combined with the reference to legal channels of access, this fundamentally disenfranchises applicants regardless of their grounds for asylum.

Also from Human rights organisations like Pro Asyl and in commentaries there is criticism of the judgment: "The judgment argues with a reality that does not exist", writes Tim Röhn in the world and calls this a "poverty testimony of the Strasbourg judges". In the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" Wolfgang Janisch describes it's called "unworldly."

However, the ruling is not a carte blanche for the so-called pushbacks. The Chamber did not make a blanket decision that illegal border crossings mean that asylum applications may no longer be submitted. Rather, it referred several times to the violent crossing and group size used by the applicants to gain access to Spanish territory.Such a situation does not exist, for example, on the green Croatian-Bosnian border, where neither violence nor group size are needed to enter Croatian territory. Moreover, the ruling refers to the border area. In Slovenia or Croatia, people often stay in the territory for days before they are brought back to Bosnia without access to legal procedures.Legal access to asylum procedures does not even theoretically exist at many EU borders, which means that the ruling is not applicable there as well. The Turkish-Greek border is in many cases a maritime border. The judgement is not applicable to this, rather the well-known Hirsi judgement applies here (Info on this at Migrationsrecht.netAccording to § 31 of the Geneva Convention on Refugees (GFK), fugitives should not be punished for illegally crossing the border if they are in direct danger in the neighbouring country.

However, the final word on the pushbacks at Spain's external border has not yet been spoken either: a case is still pending before the Spanish Constitutional Court, which could well be decided differently and which had been suspended until the ECtHR decision.

However, the ECtHR decision may also have to be seen in the context of another pending case on humanitarian visas (LINK): If the court now strongly emphasises the real existence of legal access to asylum procedures, this could also lead to the ECtHR claiming entitlement to access to humanitarian visas in certain cases. The ruling is also expected to be issued in the first half of 2020.

The ruling is nevertheless worrying, as it could push many people onto the even more dangerous route across water to Europe, and states such as Croatia and Greece could deliberately misinterpret the ruling and extend their pushback practices.


In doing so, European states should actually do justice to the verdict by finally opening legal, real access routes to constitutional asylum procedures at border crossings and to humanitarian visas in embassies.

EN
EN DE