Category: Policy

Together with other members of my group, I submitted a question to the Commission on 11 October 2021 concerning the systematic pushbacks by Croatian police officers. The background to the question is that Mirror and Tagesschau published video footage showing Croatian border guards illegally deporting protection seekers with brute force. In the video, protection seekers are ordered to run and then beaten with batons as they run. It is also clear from the footage that this practice is happening on the orders of the Croatian Ministry of the Interior. Systematic violence against refugees has been documented in Croatia for years, and the Commission has so far failed to respond adequately to the crimes committed. In addition, there is evidence of misuse of EU funds provided by the Commission to the Croatian Ministry of Interior under the Emergency Assistance Agreement to support the management of the situation at the country's borders. In the meantime, we also know that Croatian border guards have a have received official instructionsThe police have been ordered to continue deporting people seeking protection illegally, but to make sure that they are no longer filmed doing so. Of the four police officers who can be seen on the video, three were briefly suspended, but are now back on duty.

In its response, the Commission refuses even to acknowledge that Croatia systematically carries out pushbacks, although these have been documented thousands of times and for over four years. The Commission also maintains its recommendation to allow Croatia to join the Schengen area, although Croatia's practice at the external borders clearly violates the Schengen Borders Code. The Commission does not intend to initiate infringement proceedings against Croatia, pointing out that it has repeatedly asked Croatia to investigate the allegations and that Croatia has established a monitoring mechanism for such cases. This attitude is cynical because the Croatian government and authorities are supposed to monitor themselves, when it is they who are responsible for the systematic pushbacks. The monitoring mechanism is not independent and it obviously does not work.

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

Our request

Violent deportations and beatings at Croatia's external borders

On October 6, 2021, several media outlets, including Der Spiegel, ARD, and RTL Croatia, published the results of their research into the unlawful deportations at Croatia's external borders, carried out with brute force, which are said to be the fault of the country's police officers acting on the orders of the Ministry of Interior. Systematic violence against refugees has been documented in Croatia for years, and the Commission has so far failed to respond adequately to the crimes committed. In addition, there is evidence of misuse of EU funds provided by the Commission to the Croatian Ministry of Interior under the Emergency Assistance Agreement to support the management of the situation at the country's borders.

1.how will the Commission investigate the deportations ordered by the state, and what role will the results of the investigation play in Croatia's path to Schengen membership, which was recently endorsed by the Commission?

2.what concrete measures have already been taken in the framework of the independent monitoring mechanism that Croatia has set up at its border with EU funding, and how does the Commission intend to make monitoring more transparent and effective and involve credible actors, as enshrined in the Paris Principles?

3.what timetable does the Commission envisage for initiating infringement proceedings against Croatia for the country's practices at its external borders, which are in breach, inter alia, of the EU acquis on asylum?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 17.2.2022

After nearly four years of evaluating Croatia's implementation of the Schengen acquis, the Commission concluded that the country has taken all necessary measures to ensure that the conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis are met on a sustainable basis. On 22.October 2019, the Commission issued a Communication[1]which confirmed what was stated on June 2, 2021 in the Communication on the Schengen Strategy.[2] was reaffirmed. Furthermore, at its meeting of 9/10 December 2021, the Justice and Home Affairs Council[3] concluded that Croatia fulfills the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis.

Regarding allegations of mistreatment of migrants, the Commission has repeatedly asked the Croatian authorities to conduct investigations in this regard. An independent monitoring mechanism has been established in Croatia, with a publicly available six-monthly (interim) report published in December 2020, followed by an action plan to implement the initial recommendations. While the Commission has provided assistance in this regard, the responsibility for setting up the mechanism, including the composition of the relevant body, lies with the Croatian authorities. The final report of the mechanism is expected to be submitted in June 2022. The Advisory Committee, composed of representatives of the Commission and stakeholders in the field of fundamental rights, will make recommendations to improve the functioning of the mechanism. Croatia has also strengthened its internal investigation system.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to monitor compliance with the EU acquis.

The European Anti-Fraud Office is responsible for cases of suspected misuse of EU funds. If there is sufficient suspicion of fraud or misuse of EU funds, the Office may initiate investigations. Funding provided to Croatia from the three relevant EU instruments over the past four years has been independently audited and not objected to.

---

[1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the verification of the full application of the Schengen acquis by Croatia (COM(2019)497 final of 22.10.2019).

[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council "Strategy for a well-functioning and resilient Schengen area" (COM(2021)277final of 2.6.2021).

[3] Council document14883/21 of 9.12.2021.

Greece rejects asylum applications on the grounds that Turkey is a „safe third country“, but Turkey does not allow them to enter. From a question of mine it now emerges that the EU Commission classifies this procedure as contrary to European law. Although Turkey has not accepted readmissions since March 2020, Greece rejects the applications of Syrian, Afghan, Somali, Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals on the basis that Turkey constitutes a "safe third country" for these same nationals. At the same time, however, in its response to Written Question P-000604/2021, the Commission reiterated that "Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive states […]: 'Where the third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to an [asylum] procedure is granted.' In line with this provision, applicants whose application has been declared inadmissible may therefore reapply." The Commission also informs in its reply to me that they have already explained to the Greek government „that the unconditional charging of a fee of 100EUR for subsequent applications is problematic in terms of effective access to the asylum procedure.“

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

My request

Although Turkey has not accepted readmissions since March 2020, Greece rejects the applications of Syrian, Afghan, Somali, Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals on the basis that Turkey constitutes a "safe third country" for these same nationals. At the same time, however, in its response to Written Question P-000604/2021, the Commission reiterated that "Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive states […]: 'Where the third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to an [asylum] procedure is granted.' In line with this provision, applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible may therefore reapply."

1.How many subsequent applications were filed by persons whose initial asylum application was rejected on the basis that Turkey was a safe third country for them?

2. in how many of these cases did Greece apply Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive? Is Article 23 of Greek Law 4825/2021, according to which a fee of EUR 100 is incurred for the submission of a second application, compatible with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive?

3.is it compatible with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive to reject such subsequent applications as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has not invoked any new elements relating to Turkey as a safe third country?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 25.1.2022

1. the Commission services forwarded the Honourable Member's question for reply to the national authorities, who will send him the answer as soon as possible.

According to Article38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, "Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is granted in accordance with the principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II". Although Chapter II of the Asylum Procedures Directive does not address the issue of fees, the Commission has drawn the attention of the Greek authorities to the fact that the unconditional charging of a fee of 100EUR for subsequent applications is problematic in terms of effective access to the asylum procedure.

3. a precondition for the application of Article38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive is that the third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory. If this condition is met, Member States must ensure that access to a procedure on the merits is granted. They may therefore not reject the subsequent application as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept.

The Greek government is continuing to push ahead with the sealing off of Europe and in September passed a law that makes sea rescue and generally the observance of human rights even more difficult and is therefore contrary to European law. Together with members of my group, left and social democrats, we have asked the EU Commission about this – however, the Commission evades all questions in its response and refuses to evaluate the laws. One must interpret this „answer“ therefore as an approval of the Greek action against protection seekers.

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

Our request

Subject: New law on expulsions and repatriation procedures in Greece

On September 3, 2021, the Greek Parliament passed a reform law on expulsions and procedures for the repatriation of third-country nationals, which was passed exclusively by a majority of the ruling party.

At the drafting stage, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, expressed serious reservations about the draft law and, in a sense, called for its withdrawal because it was "not in line with human rights standards" and would thereby "seriously hamper the life-saving activities of non-governmental organizations and their ability to monitor human rights in the Aegean."

1. whether the Commission considers that this new law, and in particular paragraph 40 thereof, which introduces restrictions essentially prohibiting non-governmental organisations from carrying out or assisting rescue operations at sea and making them punishable, is compatible with the Greek Government's commitment to respect human rights and the Commission's guidelines in this area?

2.does the Commission approve of the tendentious method by which paragraph 40 was introduced after the end of the public consultation period?

3.Does the Commission consider that, by restricting all the relevant activities of non-governmental organisations, the Greek Government is curtailing the right to asylum, the guarantee of a legal process for all return procedures, non-refoulement and the prevention of automatic, unlawful mass detention?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 6.1.2022

The Commission recognizes the sincere efforts of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to save lives at sea and relentlessly urges Member States and other actors involved to comply with the relevant legal framework and humanitarian principles.

With regard to the possible sanctioning of non-governmental organizations participating in search and rescue operations, the Commission points out that providing assistance to persons or vessels in distress at sea is an obligation under international law and that legally required humanitarian assistance cannot be sanctioned. At the same time, it is the responsibility of Member State authorities to coordinate search and rescue operations in accordance with applicable provisions of international maritime law and international human rights law. It is important that NGOs participating in search and rescue operations cooperate with national authorities in carrying out their activities.

The Commission has repeatedly acknowledged the key role that civil society plays in safeguarding common values and fundamental rights. While the activities of private law entities, including those of non-governmental organizations, need to be regulated in order to ensure full transparency, any restrictions imposed as a condition for operating in Greece must be necessary, justified and proportionate. In this context, the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation and application of EU legislation on asylum and return. The Commission reiterates that Member States must act in full compliance with the relevant rules of international and EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Domenico Lucano was sentenced to 13 years in prison on flimsy grounds for welcoming refugees as mayor. Together with other members of my group, I have asked the EU Commission how the EU Commission deals with the conviction of the former mayor Domenico Lucano for his reception of protection seekers and in general with the increasing criminalization of human rights activists under the guise of fighting smuggling crime. As usual, the Commission's response does not address our specific questions, but emphasizes general noble principles – without taking action when these principles are violated.

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

Our request

Subject: Implementation of the Smuggling Directive and humanitarian aid

Domenico Lucano, former mayor of Riace, a town in the southern Italian region of Calabria, was sentenced to more than 13 years in prison for aiding irregular migration and for "irregularities" in the care of asylum seekers.

During his term as mayor, Riace gained notoriety for his exemplary reception and integration of migrants. The court's verdict is shocking, as it almost doubled the sentence of seven years and eleven months requested by prosecutors. This is another example of the lack of uniformity in the implementation of the smuggling directive in the EU member states and the worrying criminalization of humanitarian aid.

1. Against this background, how does the Commission intend to ensure that the Lucano case and similar cases of prosecution and guilty pleas do not violate the spirit of the Smuggling Directive?
2. How will the Commission ensure that the Commission's recent guidelines on the implementation of the Smuggling Directive are followed?
3. What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that private operators can bring rescued migrants ashore without fear of being prosecuted?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 21.12.2021)

The Commission's guidelines on the implementation of the Smuggling Directive clarify that lawful humanitarian assistance should never be criminalized and invite Member States, if they have not already done so, to make use of the possibility to distinguish between (non-lawful) acts with the aim of providing humanitarian assistance and acts with the aim of facilitating unauthorized entry or transit and to exempt the former from criminalization.

One year after the adoption of the Guidelines, monitoring of the implementation of the Smuggling of Migrants Directive is intensified under the renewed EU Action Plan against smuggling of migrants. In case of breaches of EU law, the Commission reserves the right to use its powers under the Treaties to initiate infringement procedures. The Commission will report in 2023 on the implementation of the 2020 Smuggling Package and Guidelines and propose a revision if necessary to ensure that the EU is adequately equipped to respond to the changing challenges in this area.

The coordination of search and rescue operations is the responsibility of the Member States; the Commission has no operational tasks in this regard. Nevertheless, the Commission has repeatedly called on all actors involved to comply with the relevant legal framework and, in the context of the new migration and asylum package, has proposed a better coordinated EU approach to search and rescue operations, including the establishment of the first European Contact Group on this issue.

The fact that Libya is not a safe place for people have Studies and court rulings confirmed again and again. The EU Commission has ignored this fact for years and supports the Libyan Coast Guard in returning people fleeing to Libya. In its response to a joint question from several MEPs, the EU Commission refuses to take concrete steps and emphasizes general principles – which, however, are in conflict with actual action.

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

Our request

Subject: Ruling of a court of Naples on the return of migrants to Libya

Libya is not a safe place for people to enter. This was the conclusion of a Naples court in its verdict, sentencing an Italian ship captain to one year in prison for bringing 101 rescued migrants back to Libya with the help of the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG). This should be a clear indication that returning migrants to Libya is unacceptable, not only for commercial vessels operating in the Central Mediterranean, but also for Member States whose search and rescue strategy is built on cooperation with the so-called LCG. Despite clear evidence of inhumane treatment and dangers to migrants in Libya, Union funds have been allocated to train and equip the LCG, and the EU has supported Libya in designating a disproportionately large search and rescue zone, resulting in numerous deaths.

1.what measures is the Commission taking to monitor Member States' cooperation with Libya and withdraw EU support for cooperation leading to the forced repatriation of people?

2.how does the Commission, together with the Frontex Management Board, ensure that the Agency no longer contributes to forced returns by involving the LCG in rescue missions?

3.In how many cases did Frontex inform the LCG about a boat with migrants or a boat in distress, which then led to returns to Libya, and are these cases investigated retroactively?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 21/12/2021:

In its cooperation with Libya, the EU's priorities include: Promoting effective search and rescue operations in compliance with human rights standards; working to end arbitrary detention of migrants; and assisting the International Organization for Migration with voluntary return and reintegration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees with the evacuation of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from detention facilities in Libya. To this end, the EU is funding projects, some of which are being implemented by Member States. The Commission regularly reviews its own operations in Libya by monitoring reports from its implementing partners and conducting targeted audits. Given the particular challenges related to the context in Libya, the Commission has also established third-party monitoring of operations in Libya under the EU Trust Fund for Africa.

Saving the lives of people on board vessels in distress is an absolute priority and the transmission of information to the relevant Maritime Rescue Coordination Center (MRCC) is an obligation under international law. Like any other organization (including non-governmental organizations), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) reports incidents requiring a search and rescue operation at sea to the internationally recognized Libyan Maritime Rescue Coordination Center when an aircraft detects a distress at sea in the Libyan search and rescue zone. While it is necessary to notify the appropriate MRCC in order to save lives in immediate danger, Frontex operational plans require all vessels to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with Regulation (EU) No.656/2014. To date, no disembarkation has been carried out by a Frontex vessel in Libya.

The Commission has asked Frontex to reply to the third question put by the Honourable Members. The Commission will provide the Honourable Members with the Agency's reply as soon as possible.

Greece rejects asylum applications from Syrian refugees on the grounds that they can go back to Turkey because Turkey is a safe third country. In reality, however, Turkey has not accepted any repatriations for some time now, so the people concerned are stuck and can neither go back nor forward. Notwithstanding this, Greece now wants to extend this practice to other countries of origin. Together with MEPs from several political groups, we have asked the EU Commission how it intends to ensure that those affected can once again submit an application that takes the real situation into account in the assessment. In its response, the Commission now refuses to take concrete steps to do so. In fact, it does not even know whether and how many rejected applicant:s will be able to reapply. The Commission responds that it believes that Syrian applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible and not deported to Turkey should be able to reapply. However, the Commission also does not seem to want to draw any consequences if Greece does not do so. Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that it would like to see a resumption of returns to Turkey.

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

Our request

Subject: Inadmissibility of asylum applications of Syrian nationals in Greece

In its letter of July 26, 2021, the Commission stated that Syrian nationals whose asylum claims had been declared inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey was considered a safe third country, but who were not allowed to re-enter Turkey, should be able to reapply for asylum in Greece.

In March 2020, Turkey suspended all readmissions from Greece. Notwithstanding this, since then asylum applications from Syrian nationals continue to be definitively rejected on the grounds that Turkey is considered a safe third country.

• Have all Syrian nationals on the Greek islands whose applications were declared inadmissible been given the opportunity to reapply for asylum? If not, what action will the Commission take to ensure that they are given this opportunity?

• On June 7, 2021, the Greek government proposed declaring Turkey a safe third country for asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Somalia, which would mean that their applications would also be considered inadmissible.

• How will the Commission ensure that asylum applications from these nationals are not declared inadmissible on the false assumption that the applicants can be taken back by Turkey? What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the Greek Government complies with the Asylum Procedures Directive in this regard?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 21.12.2021

In its reply to Written Question P-000604/2021, the Commission stressed that, in accordance with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Greek authorities should ensure that Syrian applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible and not deported to Turkey can reapply. The Commission services have requested the relevant data on asylum applications of Syrian nationals from the Greek authorities, which will be sent to the Honourable Members as soon as possible.

Following the adoption of the Joint Ministerial Decision of 7 June 2021, Greece considers Turkey as a safe third country for applicants for international protection originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Somalia. To the extent that inadmissible applicants are not allowed to enter Turkey, the Commission considers that Article 38(4) of the Directive should also be applied to these applications and access to the asylum procedure should be granted on the basis of their merits.

The EU remains committed to the full implementation of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, which is the main framework for cooperation between the EU and Turkey on migration issues. This partnership is based on mutual trust and action, which requires commitment and continuous efforts from all sides. The Commission has repeatedly called for the resumption of returns from Greece to Turkey.

Together with seven other MEPs from our group, I asked the Commission on 1 October 2021 whether it considered Poland's imposition of a state of emergency and refusal to allow asylum procedures at the border to be compatible with EU law. We also asked what measures the Commission was taking regarding illegal pushbacks and whether it was examining whether the deployment of EU agencies in Latvia and Lithuania was compatible with the legal framework. The Commission replies that it condemns the actions of Belarus, but this was not at all in question. The Commission also states that Member States must of course comply with EU law, but that the Commission does not have the power to enforce certain measures in the event of violations. The Commission does not condemn the clear human rights violations by Member States, but at least Mrs Johansson states that the principle of non-refoulement applies, even if it is not stated that states such as Poland obviously do not comply with it.

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

Our request

Subject: Provisional measures concerning the situation of asylum seekers in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania

Following a series of legislative changes in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, security forces there have reportedly prevented dozens of asylum seekers from entering and applying for asylum at the EU border with Belarus, resulting in several deaths. On September 8, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a preliminary decision ordering Lithuania not to return five Afghan asylum seekers to Belarus. According to Reuters, this decision was violated on September 9, 2021. On 27 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights extended its previous interim orders by requiring Poland and Latvia to provide food, care and accommodation to the individuals concerned, as well as allowing them access to lawyers.

1. whether the Commission considers that the state of emergency imposed in the respective countries, the legislative amendments and the subsequent measures taken by Poland, Latvia and Lithuania comply with the Schengen acquis and EU asylum law, and in particular with the provisions requiring Member States to grant access to asylum procedures, including at the border?

2. what action the Commission has taken following the interim measures, in particular with regard to the deportation of persons by the Lithuanian authorities on 9 September 2021?

3. whether the Commission has examined whether the presence of EU agencies in Latvia and Lithuania is compatible with the legal frameworks under which the agencies must operate?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 3.12.2021:

The Commission strongly condemns the instrumentalisation of migrants for political purposes by Belarus. It is in continuous dialogue with the national authorities of Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, including on national emergency laws and their compatibility with EU law.

The Commission is aware of various interim measures adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the exceptional situation at the border with Belarus in several cases against Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.

The Commission does not have the power to enforce interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. In the management of external borders and in the application of the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code[1] Member States are obliged to guarantee the right of access to an international protection procedure and to respect the principle of non-refoulement in line with the Union acquis on asylum and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Commission is also in close contact with international human rights organisations and the EU agencies to ensure that each agency provides the necessary assistance to the Member States concerned within its respective mandate.

---

[1] Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L77, 23.3.2016, p.1).

Together with my group colleague Alexandra Geese, I have written a letter to the Commission in which we explain how refugees in the new camps on the Greek islands are being monitored around the clock and locked up like felons. The situation is almost certainly contrary to EU law, yet the camps are being financed with €37 million from the Corona reconstruction fund, which is not earmarked for this purpose. 

Read here the letter from Alexandra Geese and me to the EU Commissionwhich more than 40 MEPs have co-signed. As the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, we want to raise the issue of disproportionate surveillance methods in plenary in December.

Together with the Social Democrat Bettina Vollath and the left-wing Clare Daly, I tabled a question to the Commission on the advance of the Islamists as early as 30 June, six weeks before the Taliban invaded Kabul. Unfortunately, the Commission took more than 10 weeks to answer our question. These and other questions can be found in full on the homepage of the European Parliament.

Our request

Since the withdrawal of US and NATO troops, violence and clashes have been steadily increasing. As a result, foreign embassies have started to withdraw their staff and close their offices. Despite the deteriorating security situation, the Commission and Afghanistan signed the Joint Declaration on Cooperation in the Field of Migration in April 2021. However, in terms of its content and purpose, it does not address recent developments at all and only provides for a limited review of the current security situation.

1. will the Commission involve Parliament in future decisions relating to this Joint Declaration and report on the results of monitoring the implementation of the Joint Declaration?

2. what is the Commission's assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan in the light of the escalating violence and what consequences does this assessment have for repatriations to Afghanistan?

3. in view of the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, how does the Commission intend to enable Afghans, in particular local NATO troop personnel, to seek refuge legally in the EU?

Commission's reply

In its answer, the Commission acknowledges that the Member States do not currently intend to carry out repatriations. However, the Commissioner responsible, Ylva Johansson, only made this statement three days after the Taliban captured Kabul, although it was clear long before that that Afghanistan was not safe enough to deport. Specifically, the Commission's response states:

„The Commission shall report regularly to the European Parliament on the state of play of the negotiations on EU readmission agreements and arrangements. The last meeting, held on 23 March 2021, also discussed returns to Afghanistan and the forthcoming signing of the Joint Declaration on Afghan-EU Cooperation on Migration.

In view of the rapidly deteriorating security situation and the fall of the Afghan Government, the Commission considers that the current situation in Afghanistan clearly does not provide guarantees for the respect of fundamental rights and the safety of returnees. For further details, see Commissioner Johansson's statement on the situation in Afghanistan of 18 August 2021.. The Commission acknowledges that Member States do not intend to carry out returns to Afghanistan.

The United States, as well as some countries deploying NATO forces, are implementing programmes to assist local Afghan staff who have worked with them and are seeking protection from possible Taliban reprisals following the withdrawal of foreign forces, including through resettlement. Concrete actions in this context will be implemented for local staff employed in the EU Delegation and in the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) field office in Kabul.“