Category: Policy

Our Conference against criminalization of solidarity and for support of civil society

On October 22 and 23, our group, my office in Brussels and the Polish Greens organized a conference to bring together people from all over Europe who are affected by criminalization. Criminalization means helpers are put on trial for helping others on the run in a humanitarian way. This is meant to deter and ensure that the flight to Europe remains life-threatening and inhumane. Particularly affected, however, are refugees themselves, who are criminalized. Either directly for fleeing or because they are accused of belonging to trafficking networks simply because they steered a boat. 

The choice for our conference "Civil Society Talks: Resilience and Resistance" fell on Wrocław, because the Criminalization of Polish Civil Society Increased Particularly Strongly has since the Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka systematically brought people to the Polish border. But also because the city has taken in a particularly large number of refugees from Ukraine, who now have a relevant part of the population represent. 

Double standards in Poland 

On the one hand, solidarity for people from Ukraine in Poland is very great. On the other hand, it is also bitter to see how the solidarity is limited only to the immediate neighbors and other people are still not recognized as refugees because they have a different skin color or religion. Especially in Poland it is absurd to see how great the solidarity with refugees from Ukraine is everywhere in the country and people who help at the Ukrainian border are celebrated as heroes; while those who do exactly the same at the border with Belarus are treated like dangerous criminals. 

It is necessary to help on the border with Belarus, especially in winter. So far died at least 17 people at the border between Poland and Belarus – most of them from the cold. All activists with whom we have spoken assume that the number of unreported cases is significantly higher. 

Great interest 

The interest in the event was great. During the day on Saturday, around 100 people came, including a great many interested people and activists from Wrocław itself. During the day, the event took place in the venerable Ossolinski National Library, where criminalized people from all over Europe shared their experiences and networked. 

Guests were the Polish NGOs Blue dot, which creates various places where Ukrainian refugees are helped. Nomadawho provide legal advice and supervise various integration projects and the Mothers at the Borders, offering support directly at the Polish external border and demonstrating against the unequal treatment of refugees. 

Criminalization 

The big panel of the conference took place on Saturday evening at the Wyspa Tamka Cultural Center and was moderated by me. I am especially happy that Hamid Khalizad shared his story with us. The Greek authorities accused him of being a trafficker simply because he himself had to flee to Greece. He has since, fortunately, been acquitted. The criminalization of human rights defenders who are themselves migrants is far too underreported because they are in a particularly vulnerable situation. They can face deportation, pushback, arbitrary detention and loss of status, as well as harsh financial, social and economic consequences. 

Because Hamid unfortunately could not be there in person, his letter was sent by Seán Binder read aloud. Seán Binder was imprisoned in Greece for several months and the trial against him is still ongoing, only because the Greek authorities did not want to continue to accept that he and his organization were Free Humanitarians Rescue people from distress at sea in the Aegean Sea. The trial against him and other sea rescuers has already been postponed several times for flimsy reasons, leaving them in a space of legal uncertainty from which they cannot easily escape. The lawyer Elli Kriona From Hias Greece reported on the lack of rule of law and legal advice to refugees – especially on the islands. 

The Polish perspective 

The Polish perspective on the subject have given us Mariusz Kurnyta and Marta Gorczynska pointed out. Mariusz lives near the border and was a soldier. When he heard that people were freezing to death not far from his house, he decided to do the obvious and humane thing and help them. He is shocked to report how the Polish authorities treat people at the border and, unfortunately, how many of his neighbors and friends do not agree at all with him helping fugitives at the Belarusian border. Marta is a human rights lawyer and part of the Grupa Granica alliance, which spontaneously formed on the Belarusian border over a year ago. She spoke primarily about the humanitarian crisis on the Belarusian border, to which the alliance also has a Summary has written. In addition, Marta also worked on this Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights report entitled. "The lawless Zone: Polish-Belarusian Border Monitoring." 

In addition to the Greek and Polish perspective, Marta Llonch, a lawyer actively working at the border with Melilla, was also a guest and reported on the human rights situation on the ground, where in June this year at least 37 people died. After the event, the participants talked in an informal atmosphere and took another look around Wrocław. 

Shrinking Spaces 

The next morning there was another event on "Shrinking Spaces", i.e. the restriction of space for civil society. Here the focus was on how attempts are being made to concretely restrict space for NGOs so that they can no longer do their work and help people fleeing. At the conference, I met many people who were put on trial for doing the right thing. The thing we would all say should be done. Not let people drown, freeze to death or die of thirst. It's a disgrace to us as a European Union that people are being put on trial for that. And it is an equally great shame that people are thrown into prison in EU countries because they themselves had to flee. Our goal remains to create a friendly environment for solidarity and to fight the criminalization of civil courage. In addition, independent human rights monitoring at our external borders must be strengthened. Finally, we need to better fund humanitarian aid and promote a balanced EU migration policy instead of criminalizing it. In short, we need to make policies that are compatible with the values we promote. 

I have put a question to the Commission about the documented „drift-backs“ in the Aegean Sea. To my question whether the Commission finally admits these human rights violations at the Greek border I receive once again no answer. The Commission remains vague in its statements and only points out that it has asked the Greek authorities to investigate all allegations. However, it is self-explanatory that this does not yield much when an authority that commits human rights violations itself is supposed to investigate its own misconduct. Now that this is the case, the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, should initiate infringement proceedings against Greece to clarify the widely documented violations of the rule of law and human rights. After all, our borders are only protected if our fundamental rights are also protected at them.

You can find the request with answers in several languages here.

My request

The research agency "Forensic Architecture" recently reported that the Greek Coast Guard, partly with the assistance of Frontex, has abandoned refugees on life rafts in 1,018 cases so that they would drift back from Greek waters to the Turkish coast, also known as "drift-back." Although there is growing evidence of this practice, the Commission's response to it so far has been very muted and ambiguous, giving the impression that it wants to cover up for the Greek state agencies instead of acting as a guardian of the treaties.

• Does the Commission intend to take joint action with Frontex with regard to the above cases, or does it expect the Greek Transparency Authority to make these incidents the subject of an independent investigation?
• In dealing with the systematic human rights violations alleged against the Greek Government, does the Commission take account of the conflict of interest in view of the party affiliation of Vice-President Margaritis Schinas, who is responsible in the College of Commissioners for promoting our European way of life?
• Is the Commission finally acknowledging the frequent and serious human rights violations at Greece's borders, following the publication of a long list of evidence by a wide range of established actors?

The reply of Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 13.10.2022

1. The responsibility for investigating alleged refoulements lies with the national authorities. In this context, the Greek authorities informed the Commission about measures taken to ensure the respect of fundamental rights. These include internal control procedures, investigations by independent authorities and the possibility for prosecutors to investigate allegations*. The Commission will continue to work with the Greek authorities to monitor progress made.
2. Vice President Schinas has no conflict of interest. According to the Code of Conduct for Commission members, a conflict of interest exists when a personal interest may affect the independent performance of a Commission member's duties. Personal interests include, but are not limited to, potential
   Benefits or advantages for the members themselves, their (spouses) partners or immediate family members. A conflict of interest does not exist if a commission member is affected merely as part of the general public or a broad section of the population. Consequently, affiliation with a political party as well as political convictions do not create a conflict of interest.
3. Member States have an obligation under EU law to prevent and deter unauthorized crossing of the EU's external borders in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. Respect for fundamental rights is a non-negotiable part of the implementation of integrated European border management, and the Commission has repeatedly called on the relevant national authorities to thoroughly investigate allegations and bring those responsible to justice where appropriate.

*According to the new proposals, the Greek authorities will continue to work on a three-tier structure, relying on: a) internal control procedures to investigate crimes related to Greek Police or Greek Coast Guard operations and to
to be prosecuted, b) investigations by independent authorities such as the Greek Ombudsman and the National Transparency Authority, and c) the ability of prosecutors to investigate allegations following an appropriate complaint or press and NGO reports. Most recently, the
Greek authorities to adopt legislation on June 30, 2022, following discussions between Commissioner Johansson and relevant ministers in Greece, including the establishment of a Fundamental Rights Commissioner and a specific Fundamental Rights Monitoring Committee within the Ministry of Migration and Asylum. The Fundamental Rights Officer and the Committee will deal with complaints related to both border operations and asylum procedures.

I have submitted a question to the Commission on pushbacks at the border between Greece and Turkey. The Commission expresses shock and concern about the reports and replies that it will review the current control mechanisms to safeguard fundamental rights.

You can find the request with answers in several languages here.

My request

As from the Greek Refugee Council reported, 94 Syrians:including minors with health conditions and young mothers with their infants, were recently stranded on an islet off the coast of the Greek regional district of Evros and were forced to stay there for several days without water and food. Although the European Court of Human Rights took interim measures on May 24, 2022, to ensure that these people receive immediate humanitarian and medical assistance and that the reception and identification procedures provided for by law are applied to them, they were returned to Turkey against their will last weekend, according to reports from their family members in Turkey.

• In the Commission's view, are the Greek actions described above compatible with EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

• What steps will the Commission take to investigate the possible expulsion of 94 Syrians?

• Does it have information about other illegal refoulements by Greece or about the number of alleged illegal practices at the Greek border?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 08/08/2022

The Commission is deeply concerned by all reports and allegations of refoulement and ill-treatment. Any form of violence or refoulement is unlawful and must be investigated by the national authorities responsible for establishing the facts and taking follow-up action. The Commission is aware of the increasing migration flows at the land border with Turkey in recent months and the threat of smugglers who abandon migrants on small islands in the Evros River.

In accordance with the Regulation with common provisions Member States must establish effective mechanisms to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (basic requirements). The Commission is currently assessing the mechanisms put in place in the context of the Greek programs under the Home Affairs Funds, including the independent mechanism for monitoring and preventing refoulement. If the Commission considers that an essential condition is not met, the expenditure incurred under the measures concerned may be included in the payment claims, but reimbursement will only be made once the Commission has informed the Member State concerned that the essential condition has been met.

The Commission examines all relevant information at its disposal and cooperates with the Greek authorities responsible for the control mechanisms and the concrete investigation of allegations. The Commission also works within the framework of the Task Force âMigration Managementâ is working with Greece and providing feedback in this area in order to increase the effectiveness of the monitoring and follow-up modalities put in place by the Greek authorities to fully implement the obligations under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and EU law, including the principle of non-refoulement.

The EU funds several closed migration centers with detention-like conditions in Greece. Despite evidence from a Greek court and several non-governmental organizations, the Commission denies that detention-like conditions exist and further claims that the rights of those seeking protection are not being violated.

You can find the request with answers in several languages here.

My request

The EU funds several closed migration centers in Greece. These include the closed controlled-access center on Samos, which opened in September 2021 and received funding of EUR 43 million under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). According to rulings by a Greek court and evidence from various non-governmental organizations, many asylum seekers face de facto detention and extensive surveillance at this center.

• Does the Commission consider the funding of this closed center to be compatible with the specific provisions governing the detention of asylum seekers in international and European asylum law (e.g. the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin III Regulation)?

• Could the Commission provide a detailed list of all AMIF expenditures for the Samos camp since September 2021, broken down by category of expenditure (in particular monitoring, including procedures and guards)?

• Is there a concrete overview of funding under AMIF for comparable centers in the Georgian islands, including their capacity and total number of staff per camp, and how does the Commission monitor this expenditure?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 08/09/2022

The Commission has allocated â¬276 million from the Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for the construction of five multi-purpose reception and identification centers on the islands of Samos, Kos, Leros, Chios and Lesvos. These centers include different areas, including reception and identification structures for new arrivals, accommodation facilities, safe areas for unaccompanied children and adolescents, recreational areas and deportation zones. As demonstrated by the Return Directive only the deportation zones are closed areas. The full respect of the EU right of asylum and return is a condition for the centers to be supported with EU funds.

The tender documents published by the Greek authorities for the construction of the centers are available online. They refer to the total cost of the construction works and not to the cost per center. The contracts containing information on the running costs of the new center on Samos come from the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum and therefore the Commission does not have the requested information. The Honourable Members are invited to contact the competent authorities for further information. Services of the Ministry to turn.

The Commission has deployed staff to the islands and is closely monitoring the work of the new centers to ensure compliance with applicable EU law. This is done through mandatory reporting by the beneficiaries of EU funds and on-site visits by Commission staff. For the construction of the new multipurpose reception and identification centers, an additional monitoring framework has been put in place, including regular financial controls by an external audit firm during the project.

The commission explained here how it will fund the Egyptian coast guard with â'¬80 million over the next two years to drag people back into the country, even though the human rights situation is catastrophic. The Commission modestly refers to this as "preventing irregular migration by sea".

You can find the request with answers in several languages here.

My request

Commissioner Várhelyi has recently confirmedthat the Commission has pledged long-term and short-term financial support to Egypt amounting to almost EUR 300 million. According to News reports 80 million of the funding for the Egyptian Coast Guard is earmarked for “border protection†and for preventing Egyptians from fleeing. The Parliament has repeatedly expressed its concern about the disastrous human rights situation in Egypt.nd since January 2021, 3,500 Egyptians have fled the country by boat to Italywhich makes them the second largest group of people arriving there from Mediterranean countries.

• Can the Commission provide an overview of all equipment or services supplied to the Egyptian authorities and the Coast Guard, in particular for border protection, and what is the timetable for future distribution?

• What indicators will the Commission use to ensure that EU-Egypt migration cooperation is in line with Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union, i.e. that human rights are respected and promoted, e.g. by ensuring accountability for possible human rights violations?

• What human rights impact or risk assessment has been (or will be) carried out on this financial support to ensure that it does not facilitate or be used for human rights abuses?

Answer given by Olivér Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission on 25.08.2022

The Commission stands ready to assist Egypt in maintaining its capacity to prevent irregular migration by sea and in strengthening the control of its border with Libya and Sudan. This is of particular importance given that irregular entries of Egyptian nationals into the EU (over 90 % to Italy, mainly via Libya) increased sixfold in 2021 (to 9219).

Against this background, the Commission is currently developing, in close coordination with the Egyptian authorities, a measure to support border management (search and rescue, land and sea border surveillance). A total budget of EUR 80 million is foreseen, to be implemented in two phases: EUR 23 million in 2022 and EUR 57 million in 2023. As the measure has not yet been adopted, there is no overview at this stage of the equipment or services that will be provided to the Egyptian authorities in this framework.

The measure will be subject to an ex-ante risk assessment and monitoring measures will be in place throughout its duration to ensure that the measure does not jeopardize compliance with international human rights law and the protection of refugees and migrants.

Following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, the Commission suspended most of its agreements with the country and largely ceased cooperation with Afghanistan. Since then, in response to the events in Afghanistan, it has established a Action Plan which was leaked to the media. I asked the following questions about it:

You can find the entire request with answers in several languages also here.

My questions

• Has the action plan already been adopted? If so, will there be reports on the implementation and will the measures be made publicly available?

• Is the parliament informed about the implementation of the action plan?

• Will the Commission disaggregate and communicate its commitment to receive 38,000 vulnerable Afghans by Member State and by program (resettlement, humanitarian reception, etc.) and how many Afghans are currently arriving in Europe through both the official evacuation routes and the programs for Afghans at risk?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 17/08/2022

The Action Plans to strengthen comprehensive migration partnerships with priority countries of origin and transit, including the Action Plan adopted in response to the events in Afghanistan, were jointly developed by the Commission and the European External Action Service in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council of June 2021 and subsequently presented to the Member States at the meetings of the Council Working Group on External Asylum and Migration Policy. These action plans are dynamic documents that will evolve over time. They are intended for internal use by the EU and its Member States and should contribute to the development of a common strategic approach to cooperation with partner countries. The objective of this specific action plan is to strengthen the measures to be taken in support of the Afghan people or together with Afghanistan’s neighbors. Afghanistan is in great need of humanitarian aid, and the country’s own resources are limited. EU humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan is already underway and is being provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.

The Commission is determined to continue to keep the European Parliament fully informed on all aspects of migration policy, including its actions in Afghanistan and the region. The Commission will continue to inform the Parliament about the evolution of the humanitarian situation on the ground and the adaptation of the EU humanitarian response.

3. The commitments made by the member states regarding Afghans at risk for the period 2021-2022 are as follows to be taken from the appendix. Member States have reported to the Commission that by April 2022, almost 28,700 persons have been admitted for humanitarian reasons, but resettlement has not yet started.

I asked the EU Commission on 25.05.2022 what it thinks about the fact that the Greek authorities immediately take arriving protection seekers into deportation custody and lock them in a prison that they are not allowed to leave. The Commission responds that it is aware of this practice and that it is also legally justifiable if less drastic measures do not work. These „less restrictive measures“ are not applied, however, and would also have to be subject to a case-by-case review – which they currently are not.

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

My request

On May 10, 2022, Greece's National Transparency Authority published an investigative report on suspected refoulements, describing, among other things, the process for managing the flow of asylum seekers reaching Greek territory by land or sea.

• In the light of Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive, what is the Commission's view of Greece's practice of placing new arrivals in detention pending their transfer to a reception and identification center in the Evros region (p. 23/24)?
• Taking into account Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive, what is its view of the practice whereby applicants are kept in the facility for up to 25 days from registration during the reception and identification procedures, but are not allowed to leave the facility because they are in detention (p. 29)?
• How are statistics collected on "prevention" (p. 56) and how many cases of prevention were recorded by the Greek authorities in 2021? Please provide a breakdown by police directorate (Alexandroúpoli, Orestiada, North Aegean and Dodecanese).

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 3.08.2022

The Commission is aware that persons arriving irregularly across the land border with Turkey at Evros are transferred to the Reception and Identification Center in Fylakio, where they are subject to the Reception and Identification Procedure and undergo a medical examination, registration of personal data, fingerprinting and interview, after which they are directed to follow-up procedures (asylum for persons applying for international protection or repatriation of persons who renounce such an application).

With regard to administrative detention during the reception and identification procedure, Article 8(3) of the Reception Conditions Directive provides that[1] in accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[2] an exhaustive list of grounds on which an applicant may be detained when less coercive measures cannot be effectively applied. Among the grounds for detention listed there is the need to establish or verify the identity or nationality of the person. However, such decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. The Commission is closely monitoring the situation on the ground and is in dialogue with the Greek authorities. However, it does not collect statistics on 'preventions' and does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.