Category: Policy

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}

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."