Green delegation trip to the Greek border

From September 19 to 21, I was part of a delegation from my group in the European Parliament, together with MEPs Tineke Strik from the Netherlands, Saskia Bricmont from Belgium and Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield traveled from France to Greece. The aim of the trip is to get a picture of the current situation of refugees in Greece – but also the situation of the rule of law and freedom of the press in general. The Greek government has had leading opposition politicians and journalists monitored by spyware and, according to Reporters Without Borders, the country is lagging behind in terms of press freedom, currently ranked 108 out of 180 countries – Only Russia and Belarus perform worse in Europe. 

RIC Fylakio – Conditions in the camps.

The focus of our trip was a visit to the Evros, the border river to Turkey. Here again and again particularly serious human rights violations – violent and systematic pushbacks – documented. In addition, we have also addressed issues related to biometric mass surveillance of protection seekers in so-called RIC (Reception and Identification Center). We visited the RIC in Fylakio, where people are actually allowed to be locked up for a maximum of 25 days. In practice, even children are locked up there for months and have no access to education or medical care. The camp itself is small, but full of locked doors and barbed wire, with no shade or color. People live in container houses with blocks for families, men and unaccompanied minors. The NGOs on the ground are so intimidated by the government that they are afraid to talk to us MPs for fear of losing access to the camp or funds if they do.

Dead on the Evros 

We were denied access to the border region, even though we are MEPs and I am responsible for external borders in Parliament. Unfortunately, the Greek authorities are concretely preventing me from doing my work as an MEP. We were standing in front of two containers, in which lay the bodies of 20 people found on the Evros River. This year alone, the bodies of 51 people have been found in the Greek border region. We talked to Dr. Pavlidis; he takes care of these cases on a voluntary basis, trying to create certainty for the relatives whether their missing sons, daughters or parents are still alive. Often the bodies are found only after months – also because NGOs are denied access to the border region.

Meeting with Frontex

All activities of the agency are based on the self-declared needs of the national authorities and are under that supervision. The Greek authorities try to keep Frontex away from their illegal activities and pushbacks, because Frontex should actually report them – which they have demonstrably not done in many cases. The border guards and supervisors we spoke with claim to report all activities, but have never witnessed any pushback. When we asked what they actually do all day, we did not receive a comprehensible answer.

Meeting with Notis Mitarachi 

On Tuesday we had a meeting with the Greek Minister of Migration Notis Mitarachi, who has repeatedly accused us MPs and also renowned international media of spreading fake news and Turkish propaganda when we talked about the obvious pushbacks, violence and disappearances at sea. The Greek government is not only building fences on the border, but also a wall of lies. In his speech, Mitarachi spoke of much better reception conditions and a minimal backlog of asylum procedures in the country, but did not address the issues raised by credible actors allegations of pushbacks raised and other human rights violations. I have confronted Mr. Mitarachi with several recent cases, including the Cases of people stranded on an island on the river Evros. But Mr. Mitarachi simply claimed that all these cases were lies and fabrications. 

Freedom of the press in Greece 

We met journalists who were involved in the coverage of the Predator case involved where Greece illegally wiretapped journalists and opposition politicians. Their accounts painted a picture of intimidation, national media that have become the government's mouthpiece, and a severe lack of resources for investigative journalism.

Lesbos 

After the end of the green mission, I traveled to Lesvos to see the situation in the Mavrouvoni camp, which was built after the fire in Moria and was intended as a short-term emergency solution. The situation in the camp is still not good, but it is also much better than a year ago due to the many NGOs and international pressure. How the situation was a year ago, I have written down here. Currently, a new camp is being built, which is even more remote than Mavrouvoni and should be ready next spring. It is feared that people will be locked up there and NGOs will not have access.

General situation in Greece 

On Tuesday, we met with experts in Athens who deal with the dangerous effects of biometric mass surveillance, corruption in the allocation of public funds, attacks on press freedom and the wiretapping scandal. The many discussions left the picture of a state where basic democratic standards and human rights are no longer respected. The EU, especially the Commission, must act quickly and build pressure to counter further deterioration. Civil society, independent journalists and refugees need active support to resist the attacks by the state and the government. 

Greek government lies

My visit to the Evros and Athens has shown me once again that the Greek government systematically lies in order to evade its responsibility and does not shy away from mistreating people on the run, intimidating NGOs and attacking and spying on journalists. But there is also an intact civil society that needs our support now to continue fighting for the rights of those seeking protection and for the preservation of democracy and the rule of law. 

Question: Rejections despite interim measures of the ECtHR

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.

Question: EU funding for closed migration centers

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.

My question on EU funding for the Egyptian Coast Guard

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.

Question: Hydrogen – added value for African partner countries?

Together with the other Green MEPs from the Development Committee, I have put a question to the Commission on the promotion of hydrogen as part of the Global Gateway Strategy. We have our doubts about whether this hydrogen is really green, and we also have doubts about whether using energy to produce hydrogen for export is really appropriate when many millions of people in the partner countries concerned have no access to electrical energy. In its answer, the Commission mentions concrete goals that are supposed to help all parties involved, but unfortunately does not go into how exactly these are to be achieved.

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

Our request:

Under the Global Gateway strategy, investments in infrastructure development are expected to reach up to EUR 300 billion in the current funding period. According to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) of 1 December 2021 entitled "Global Gateway" (JOIN(2021)0030), the Commission and the HR/VP will work with partner countries that have the potential to develop their production of hydrogen using renewable energy sources and promote the creation of competitive markets so that this hydrogen produced outside the EU can be traded internationally without export restrictions or price distortions.

  • Given the intention to produce 'green hydrogen' for international trade in partner countries, could the Commission provide concrete data analysis to ensure that the potential of such an investment policy not only serves the EU's energy needs but also adds value to Africa in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals?
  • How will the production of "green hydrogen" for export deal with the major problem of energy poverty in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where 600 million people have no access to electricity? Is the production of hydrogen the best use of renewable energy sources in partner countries?
  • Can the Commission provide further information on the legal basis and the type of EU funding allocated to such investments, as well as the countries concerned and the relevant flagship projects?

Answer given by Kadri Simson on behalf of the European Commission on 19.08.2022

Global Gateway is the EU's contribution to reducing the global investment gap, focusing on energy, transport, digital, health and education. Global Gateway is fully aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda with its Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.

With regard to the energy sector in Africa, Global Gateway is considered part of the EU-Africa Green Energy Initiative which aims to support environmental transformation in Africa by increasing renewable energy capacity, providing more people in Africa with access to affordable and reliable energy, promoting the use of sustainable energy, and supporting market integration and sector reforms. By 2030, the EU-Africa Green Energy Initiative aims to support the creation of at least 50 GW of renewable electricity generation capacity, providing electricity to at least 100 million people.

Africa has the potential for large-scale production of competitively priced renewable hydrogen and derived fuels. This technology can contribute to Africa's sustainable industrialization and development in line with the goals of the African Union's Agenda 2063. Once local demand is met, renewable hydrogen trading could be another way for African countries to build their green economies.

As in the REPowerEU Communication and the accompanying Action Plan. announced, the Commission is working to establish energy partnerships with a number of third countries, including countries in Africa. The private sector will mobilize investment in renewable hydrogen. The Commission will support the development of the renewable hydrogen market, in particular by mobilizing private sector investment through the financial instruments available under the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD+).

Question: EU action plan in response to events in Afghanistan

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.

Question: Report of the Greek Transparency Authority

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.

How much EU money has gone to Greece for migration?

Since 2015, the European Union has provided Greece with a total of €3.38 billion to address migration and border challenges. 2.53€ billion has been drawn down by Greece to date. 

The European Union's support to Greece is provided through three pots: the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), the Internal Security Fund (ISF) and the  Emergency Support Instrument (ESI). The largest pot is the AMIF, through which a total of €328.3 billion has been made available. This budget item supports EU member states for the purpose of efficient management of migration and the implementation and strengthening of the Common European Asylum System. The ISF provides money for the management of visas and entry, control of external borders, but also returns, for example through Frontex. Here, Greece has been allocated €320 million. The ESI provides support for emergencies and gives money for humanitarian aid, the share was 668.9€ million. Most of the regular money from AMIF, ISF and ESI goes to the national authorities, that is, to the Greek authorities dealing with migration and asylum, such as the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum. 


In addition to the regular requirements, funds can also be mobilized from AMIF and ISF for other short-term emergency needs ("Emergency Assistance"). In the case of Greece, the Emergency Assistance funds represent the largest sum of all the funds that have been mobilized. 1,54€ billion. Two thirds of all Emergency Assistance funds have gone to international organizations, the last third to the Greek authorities. It is important to note that a total of €2.06 billion has been made available, but Greece has not drawn down all of it.

Political will for good care is lacking

In fact the Greek authorities received 2,53€ billionto cope with the increased number of arrivals in recent years. In this context, it is particularly important to note that 3.38€ billion awarded were made, but a large part of it was not spent. This clearly shows that the funds available are necessary to provide adequate and dignified care for refugees on the Greek islands and on the mainland, but the political will is missingto implement it in this way. 

Basic requirements of the EU Reception Directive are still not being met in Greece, such as the right to education for children. The provision of food is also still problematic and inadequate. Enough money would actually be available to solve the problems in the long term. Even the European Court of Auditors as the EU's own authority, came in its Annual Report 2019 reached similar conclusions, without explicitly naming them as such. There was no explicit misappropriation of funds, but some funds from Emergency Assistance were misappropriated for longer-term projects and structures, although they may only be used flexibly for short-term emergency needs. In addition, the ACA criticized the inefficient use of the funds and thus the Discrepancy between EU targets and actual results – in other words, the lack of political will. Now, the money is not only going to the Greek authorities, but also to international organisations. But even more money to international organisations is not necessarily helpful if the Greek government does not support their work. blocked and criminalized, as is the case especially on the Greek islands. 

If you would like to take a closer look at the money that has been budgeted and paid out, you will find here is an overview from the European Commission. It also presents how much money went to the different international organization as well as to which Greek authorities. 

Looking at the numbers makes one thing very clear again. The state authorities and organizations actually have enough resources to treat people with dignity. But it seems to be politically not desired.

How the EU helps in Ukraine  

Since the invasion of Russian troops in Ukraine, the EU has significantly increased its financial support to the country, mobilizing around EUR 4.2 billion. Through budget support, macro-financial assistance, emergency aid, crisis response and humanitarian aid, the overall economic, social and financial resilience of Ukraine is to be maintained. Under the European Peace Facility, military assistance measures have also been made available, through which member states can be reimbursed for their in-kind military assistance to Ukraine.

Humanitarian aid and EU Civil Protection Mechanism since 2014

The European Union has not only been involved on the ground since the beginning of the current crisis. Since 2014, the year of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the escalation in eastern Ukraine, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism has been activated and humanitarian aid is being provided. It is estimated that since February, more than 12 million people have been forced to leave their homes, of which about 5 million have sought refuge outside Ukraine. According to UNOCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 15.7 million people are currently in need of humanitarian assistance, but access for aid organizations in non-government controlled areas is sometimes very difficult. Since the beginning of the year, the EU and its member states have spent â'¬348 million on humanitarian aid, of which â'¬13 million has gone to Moldova to support, among other things, the reception of refugees. The Commission warns that in order to maintain basic services in Ukraine, about 1.4 billion euros may still be needed this year. 

Function of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism can respond to natural or man-made disasters when the affected country requests assistance. The Mechanism aims to improve cooperation between Member States and the 6 additional participating countries in disaster relief, with the Commission playing a key role in coordination and funding. 

The response to the war in Ukraine is the largest operation of the Civil Protection Mechanism since its creation in 2001, millions of relief items such as vehicles, generators, sleeping bags, etc. have been delivered so far. Coordination is handled by the Emergency Response Coordination Centre in Brussels, while the newly created logistical centers in Poland, Romania and Slovakia play an important role in the distribution of relief goods. Medical equipment was also delivered through RescEU, the European Civil Protection Reserve. The EU also coordinates the evacuation of critically ill patients to hospitals within the EU.

International Donor Conference in May 2022

In a Special session of the Council at the end of May, member states noted that part of the support to Ukraine will continue to be provided through humanitarian assistance, also referring to the results of the high-level international donor conferencehosted by Poland and Sweden together with the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, pledging some â'¬6.5 billion in donations. The Commission has pledged to mobilize 200 million euros from the 2022 NDICI Global Europe cushion (âcushionâ) to support the Ukrainian government in caring for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and to increase funding for humanitarian aid.

My classification

The fact is, the solidarity of the EU towards Ukraine is shown not only in the reception of refugees and the activation of the “mass influx†directive, but also in the support of disaster and humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, the resources available in the EU budget are limited. We must not forget other crises that are less in the spotlight. In particular, for the looming food crisis, we will need not only a long-term strategy, but also short-term, flexible resources, and we must have them ready. Also for Ukraine it is important that reconstruction is already planned now – the next step towards this is the reconstruction conference in Lugano in early July. In order to mobilize sufficient resources for these measures, an adjustment of the multi-annual financial framework will also be necessary.   

Frontex – EU Parliament refuses budget discharge

The EU Parliament today refused to approve the 2020 budget discharge for the European border management agency Frontex and postponed the vote. Fabrice Leggeri resigned from his post as director of the agency after the revelation of various scandals, including the involvement of illegal pushbacks by Frontex. The agency still has not met the demands of the EU Parliament's previous discharge report and has continued to support illegal pushbacks and failed to address internal scandals.

My comment as Asylum policy spokesman of the Green Group in the European Parliament on this is:

„Frontex has systematically engaged in serious human rights abuses. The refusal of budgetary discharge is an important call for reform of the border management agency. Crimes at the external borders must finally face consequences again in the EU. The EU and its member states must immediately end external border crimes and pushbacks. The EU Commission has watched for years as Member States break EU law and Frontex covers up the crimes. Unfortunately, the EU Commission supports human rights violations through its inaction. Frontex should uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of people on the run, but by all accounts, the agency has been supporting the systematic abolition of law enforcement at the EU's external borders at the expense of human dignity in recent years."

EN