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.
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?
How will the Commission ensure that the Commission's recent guidelines on the implementation of the Smuggling Directive are followed?
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.
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:
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.“
Directive 2002/90/EC, which defines the offence of facilitating the unauthorised residence of foreign nationals in the territory of a Member State, provides for penalties to be imposed where a person intentionally facilitates the unauthorised residence of another person for financial gain.
The Union institutions have deliberately distinguished smuggling from acts of active solidarity by members of civil society, which are not only without consequences for the legal procedures for examining asylum applications, but also actually facilitate administrative activities relating to refugees.
On 13 June 2021, a Dutch journalist reporting on refugee flows was arrested in Greece under Article 29(6) of Law 4251/2014 for providing refuge to an Afghan refugee, despite the fact that the procedure concerning the refugee's lawful stay had not yet been completed. She now faces imprisonment, although it does not appear - nor does it appear from the indictment - that her intention was to profit from hosting the refugee in her home.
In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following question:
What measures will the Commission take to ensure that acts of active solidarity are not disapproved of and repressed by Member States, particularly as these acts differ substantially from those described in Directive 2002/90/EC?
Commission's reply
The Commission has assessed the implementation of Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, including an evaluation on this basis. The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the Directive and verify the conformity of national legislation with the EU legal framework. Under the Treaties, the Commission has no specific powers to investigate individual cases. In line with its general policy on infringements, the Commission focuses enforcement actions primarily on cases where there appears to be a systematic breach of EU law. It is the responsibility of national authorities to investigate and prosecute cases related to facilitation of irregular stay.
In addition, the Commission's guidelines on the application of the above-mentioned Directive invite Member States to also make use of the possibility to distinguish between acts committed for the purpose of humanitarian assistance and acts committed to facilitate irregular entry or transit, in order to exempt the former acts from criminalisation. The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of EU legislation to ensure that proportionate, effective and dissuasive criminal sanctions are introduced, while avoiding the potential criminalisation of those providing humanitarian assistance to migrants in distress.
I travelled to Lesvos in July to see what the current situation is in the new Mavrovouni camp after the fire in Moria. I also met with the Frontex field force to discuss the current situation and the pushbacks by the Greek Coast Guard. And I visited various NGOs and civil society actors who are fighting to change the situation politically, but also make offers so that refugees have the possibility to get through their difficult everyday life a little better.
In the On the night of September 8-9, the Moria camp burned down completely. At the time, 12,600 people were living there in cramped quarters in undignified conditions. The camp is a symbol of the failure of European refugee policy, which fails to guarantee people fair asylum procedures and respect their human dignity. Nine months after the fire in the Moria refugee camp, six young Afghans are sentenced to long prison terms for arson. And this despite the fact that none of the witnesses present saw them on the alleged night of the crime. The trial and the verdict have come under criticism.
The new Moria
The new Mavrovouni camp was built on the site of a former military training area. Around 4350 people currently live here in containers and tents, without running water or electricity. They can only leave the camp, which is bordered by barbed wire and walls, to a limited extent.
With Tareq Alaows I visited the new camp at the end of July. The last time Tareq was on Lesbos was in 2015. As a Syrian refugee, he slept on the street and tried to get on from here. Today he lives in Germany and is active in the Seebrücke and the Green Party.
Photo: Janka Schubart
Manos Logothetis showed us around the camp; he is the Secretary General of the Ministry of Migration and therefore responsible for the camps in Greece. Also present were the local representative of the European Commission and the director of the camp, who was also responsible for the former Moria. In response to questions about the lead contamination of soilthe access of NGOs to the camp and the massive Restriction of freedom of movement they answered evasively. Greece, unlike Germany, has no problem with walls, Logothetis said when asked why a refugee camp is walled off. In his opinion, one must also protect the local population from the refugees.
Conditions in Mavrovouni
The summers on Lesbos are very hot and the temperatures sometimes rise to 40°C. In Mavrovouni there is hardly any shade. The tents are in the full sun and it is dry as dust. The dust settles on everything and is everywhere. In the camp I visited a family in a tent to talk to them about the situation. It was even hotter inside than outside. I found it almost unbearable after just a few minutes. The people there have to spend their lives in such tents, where it is too hot in summer and where they freeze in winter. With the location right on the coast, the tents also don't protect enough from wind and water. Medical care is poor. Shortly before we visited the camp, a three-month-old infant died. According to local news, the child was reportedly vomiting the night before he died, but was not taken to a doctor in time.
Large construction site
The camp is currently a large construction site as water and power lines are being laid and housing containers are to be erected. The commission and the Greek government have promised that no one will freeze in tents this winter. I really hope that they will keep this promise. Every year since 2015, people on the island have had to freeze in tents during the winter.
Although Mavrovouni was only intended as a temporary emergency solution after the fire in Moria and there are already plans for the construction of a new camp, the camp is being expanded. The reason for this is that the construction of the new camp will still take some time and the people cannot continue to live without running water and electricity until then. In addition, the current camp will remain in place and serve as another emergency solution in case more people arrive on the island again. It is unclear whether the new camp will actually be built and whether refugees will ever be housed there. On Lesvos, there is a dispute between two municipalities on the issue and only a very narrow majority in favour of building a new camp. In September, the Commission was still promising that Mavrovouni would be a temporary camp. I therefore find it strange that construction is now taking place everywhere there and that it will probably continue to operate for a long time to come.
Lack of perspective
A large part of the people in the camp come from Afghanistan – the most unpeaceful country in the world according to Global Peace Index. With the current Taliban advance, situation on the ground worsens every day. Nevertheless, many residents have received a second rejection of their asylum application and remain in the camp in fear of deportation and without prospects and support. The applications are no longer examined to see whether the people were safe in Afghanistan or Syria, but only whether they were safe in Turkey. This also shrinks their legal prospects. The atmosphere in the camp is extremely tense and the situation has a strong impact on the mental health of the refugees.
Photo: Johanna Feiler
Many people also suffer from physical impairments, some sit in wheelchairs. They can move around the camp only poorly and receive hardly any support. And with some things you also wonder how this could happen. For example, there is a toilet for people with disabilities at the top of the camp, which is hardly accessible with a wheelchair.
Years without education
Around 40% of the people in the camp are children. Many of them have never attended school. In my conversation with the head of the UNHCR on Lesvos, Astrid Castelein, it became clear that this will not change any time soon. Although attempts are being made to organise informal education for the children, even that is not guaranteed. The goal should be to create formal education and reliable structures for the children.
In addition, the UNHCR expressed concerns about the limited access to the camp, the accommodation of people in tents in winter and the pushbacks. Neither the UNHCR, nor NGOs or journalists can approach arriving people when the Greek coast guard is on site.
The situation on Lesbos is frightening. Not because there are too many people in the camp on the island, but because hardly anyone can make the crossing. At present hardly any rubber dinghies reach the island. This is a consequence of the pushbacks by the Greek coast guard. The vast majority of those seeking protection are intercepted and mistreated by the Greek coast guard. They are not allowed to apply for asylum, their boat engines are destroyed, masked men drag them into Turkish waters and leave them there. This is highly criminal, but the inhumane treatment of people in need is now so commonplace that it doesn't even stand out. A 17 year old told me he fled the war in Syria and the first thing he had to do in Europe was run. The police chased him with dogs, wanted to dump him at sea too, but he managed to hide.
These crimes have been proven a hundred times over, and the EU Commission and the German government have prevented them from having any consequences a hundred times over. At the EU's external borders one can see in fast motion how democratic principles are dissolving and arbitrariness reigns. Those who are not white all too often have no rights at the European external borders. Those who are not white are defenceless against state violence.
Visit to Frontex forces on the ground
The Frontex forces on the ground also know about the pushbacks, but they systematically look the other way so that they can continue. Frontex's aerial reconnaissance on the ground has been discontinued because it would document too many of the obvious pushbacks and human rights violations and Frontex would then also have to complain about them.
Many people are forced out of Greek waters in the Aegean. The engines of the boats are dismantled and the people are left adrift in the Aegean, unable to manoeuvre. The role of Frontex in these pushbacks, which are contrary to international law, we have just recently discussed in the Frontex Inquiry Group of the European Parliament investigated. The people who can still reach the island are housed in a quarantine camp far away in the north.
I have exchanged views with Frontex on the restructuring of the agency and the work of the employees on the ground. Frontex's self-declared role is to assist Member States with border management. While Frontex denies involvement in pushbacks, the fact that they are taking place is hard for Frontex to deny as well. Even if they are not officially allowed to say so, it becomes clear in informal conversations that at least some Frontex officials are of course aware that pushbacks are taking place. The Greek police describe the cooperation with the agency as excellent, but they do not want to reveal details about the working procedures. When I visited a ship of the Italian Financial Guard, which Italy sent to Frontex, I could see for myself how well equipped these ships are. The ship can reach speeds of up to 120 km/h. Despite this, Frontex is conspicuous by its absence in sea emergencies in the Aegean. Many of the Frontex officers only stay on site for a few months and therefore hardly have the opportunity to familiarise themselves properly.
Police arbitrariness and restricted freedom of the press
There are numerous reports of police violence on the island. Thus, people seeking protection tried to reach the island on a rubber dinghy. At the maritime border between Greece and Turkey, the respective coast guards created waves, which is a common practice.This is just one example of the lack of rule of law in the country. I too witness this time and again, for example when Greek police officers threaten to lock me up because I want to record an interview outside the camp. The freedom of the press is massively restricted. Many members of the press are not allowed access to the new camp.
My visit to non-governmental organisations
But there are also many projects and organizations on the island that do not accept this situation and want to continuously improve the situation on the island. One example is the Community Center of One Happy Familynot far from the new camp. There are sports activities, a cybercafé, a library, a workshop, a safe space for women* and girls, psychosocial counselling, a garden, a café, a playroom for children and more. The center is managed by refugees and international volunteers. It is located within walking distance from the camp and offers many recreational and educational opportunities. It is also much more comfortable than the camps. One problem, however, is that many of the camp's residents are not able to use the facilities, or only to a limited extent. This is because they are not always allowed to go out when they want to or because they have to queue for a long time in the camp for everything, especially food, and thus lose time. When they are allowed to leave the camp, many use the time and their little money to buy more food and things that are needed in everyday life.
Photo: Johanna Feiler
There is also a permaculture farm, numerous department stores, legal advice in the Legal Center Lesvos and much more. In the school of Wave of Hope painting courses are held and the pictures of the refugees are exhibited. On Lesvos the concentration of NGOs is quite high, on other islands like Chios and Samos the situation is different.
The misery is politically intended
The situation on the ground is absurd: for example, there are numerous water and soap dispensers in a donation-filled warehouse next to Mavrovouni, just waiting to be connected and set up in the camp. But the camp management prohibits the dispensers from being transferred to the camp.
There is a lot of solidarity with the refugees at Europe's external borders. This is shown by the many donations, the NGOs and also the many cities and municipalities that show solidarity and voluntarily agree to take in more refugees from the external borders. But they are not allowed to.
The people on Lesbos would not have to live on dust-dry ground without water and electricity, isolated in tents without medical care. On the contrary, there is a political will for people to live in misery. This undignified situation at our external borders is created to deter. The situation on the ground is deliberately kept so bad that others do not apply for asylum in the EU because they are afraid that they will end up in these camps. It is a disgrace that we treat people who need our help in this way at our external borders. Yet we should actually be proud of helping people and taking in refugees.
1.how far were the Frontex and Operation Irini vessels from the location of the vessel and were they informed of the search and rescue operations?
2.Did any surveillance aircraft call the distressed vessel?
3. what action will the Commission take against Italy and Malta, which ignored distress calls and allowed over 130 people to die?
Commission's reply
The Commission's response is that it is not the task of Operation Irini to rescue people in distress at sea. The EU does not currently have a sea rescue mission either, which is why the NGOs are on the ground, but the national authorities also have a duty to rescue. The Commission's assertion that the Italian and Maltese authorities did not have any operational resources at their disposal does not strike me as credible. The Maltese authorities have hardly been actively involved in rescuing people from their sea rescue zone for years.
Here is the Commission's full reply:
The main task of Operation IRINI is to ensure the implementation of the arms embargo against Libya. The sea-based assets of Operation IRINI are mostly deployed in the eastern part of their area of operation, where the violations of the arms embargo are most frequently committed. They were informed of the incident after the fact by the Italian Maritime Rescue Control Centre. At the time of the incident, the nearest sea-based Operation IRINI asset was more than 300 nautical miles away and the nearest air-based asset was 180 nautical miles away from the scene of the incident.
In accordance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the airborne assets of Operation IRINI shall relay all information on distress situations at sea to all competent sea rescue coordination centres. The operational coordination of search and rescue operations shall be the responsibility of the Member States without operational involvement of the Commission.
The shipwreck in question occurred on 21/22 April 2021. The Libyan, Italian and Maltese rescue coordination centres were informed of a ship in distress by an aircraft from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), and the Libyan Coast Guard took over the coordination of the rescue operation and the search of the sighting area. Ocean Viking and three merchant vessels were diverted by the Italian Maritime Rescue Control Centre to provide assistance. A second Frontex aircraft was deployed to speed up the search.
The Italian and Maltese authorities had no means of intervention available in the vicinity of the incident. In the end, given the extremely unfavourable weather conditions, no ship was able to arrive in time.
I use cookies to optimize this website and my service.
Functional cookies
Always active
Technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the lawful purpose of enabling the use of a particular service expressly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a message over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that have not been requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access, which is carried out exclusively for statistical purposes.Technical storage or access used solely for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, the voluntary consent of your Internet service provider, or additional records from third parties, information stored or accessed for this purpose alone generally cannot be used to identify you.
Marketing
Technical storage or access is necessary to create user profiles, to send advertisements, or to track the user on a website or across multiple websites for similar marketing purposes.
