Politik Archive - Page 5 of 13

Vote on the Common European Asylum System

Erik Marquardt on 28 March 2023

Today, we members of the Interior Committee voted on the parliamentary positions on four dossiers of the Commission presented in September 2020. Migration and Asylum Pact off. All four were adopted in committee. Specifically, the European Parliamentâ€™s position on the screening regulation, the amended asylum procedure regulation, the regulation on asylum and migration management and the crisis regulation.

The negotiations have been protracted and have shown that the heated debate on migration issues makes it difficult to agree on solution-oriented positions. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that radical tightening of the asylum law will improve the situation for those seeking protection or for member states and municipalities. There is still a risk that the asylum reform will lead to excessive bureaucracy, processes that violate human rights, and more overburdened reception systems than the current system.

The creation of a common European asylum system was one of Ursula von der Leyen's central projects in her candidacy for Commission President in 2019. At the time, I supported this project. Assessment of the pact dispensed.

1 Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management (AMMR)

The Commission proposes in the Regulation on asylum and migration management before, the replace current Dublin system and introduce a new responsibility-sharing mechanism between member states. A The proposal focuses on increasing the number of returns. The central problem of the Dublin system is not to be solved – the country of first entry is to remain responsible for asylum procedures. For this regulation, rapporteur Thomas TobÃ© (EPP) has submitted his Draft report presented to the European Parliament's Committee on Internal Affairs (LIBE) in October last year.

The Parliament's position contains many positive elements and significant improvements compared to the Commission's proposal – and if implemented as proposed by Parliament, also significant improvements over the status quo.

After arrival and registration, it is determined which member state is responsible for processing the asylum application. There are new, additional criteria for this allocation, which are intended to relieve the states at the external borders. In addition, there is to be a mandatory solidarity system in which all states participate. The Commission has proposed various forms of solidarity. In the solidarity system in the parliamentary version, improvements will be made to ensure that resettlement, i.e. admission by another EU country, is considered a prioritized procedure.

This would be much more reliable and efficient than the ad hoc solidarity that has largely failed repeatedly in recent years. For us Greens, the demand of the parliament for an immediate redistribution of people rescued from distress at sea is a great success. This could help to end the cruel delay of sea rescue and port blockades. Overall, it can be assumed that the AMMR will not seriously solve the fundamental problems of the European asylum system, as it is unfortunately unrealistic after the experiences of the last years that EU states implement European, human or fundamental rights in asylum policy in such a way that one can assume a quick return to the rule of law. However, an implementation of the parliamentary proposal on AMMR would at least offer some practical improvements and would not have any disadvantages. Therefore, I voted in favor of it.

2. asylum procedure regulation (APR)

In 2016, the Commission issued a Proposal for the Asylum Procedure Regulation published and although the parliament in 2018. his report the member states were unable to reach an agreement. The changes presented in 2020 in the Asylum Procedure Regulation are now aiming to Require member states to use border procedures and to significantly expand the scope of the directive.

The core of the proposal is that a large part of the asylum seekers should remain at the border for the processing of the asylum applications in so-called border procedures. These border procedures are not asylum procedures in the true sense. This can lead, as in Moria, to mass camps at the external borders or to the creation of detention centers, as they have already been put into operation in Greece on the islands as pilot projects.

As rapporteur for boundary procedures I have an implementation report for the European Parliament. It becomes clear that border procedures severely restrict the fundamental and procedural rights of asylum seekers and that the intended goals are not achieved in most cases. The rapporteur for the Asylum Procedure Regulation, Fabienne Keller of the Liberals has expressed her position on the APR presented to the Interior Committee in October 2021. Together with the Social Democrats and the Left, we Greens clearly opposed mandatory border procedures at the beginning of the parliamentary deliberations.

While the Parliamentâ€™s position represents an improvement over the Commissionâ€™s proposal, it still contains elements that would massively worsen the situation of protection seekers. In particular, the application of a regulation on border procedures could lead to many people being processed at the external borders and sent back without adequate examination of their application. A current example from Germany of the problematic nature of such border procedures is the Case of 35-year-old Mohammad D.,who was deported from Frankfurt am Main to Iran, although it is actually not allowed to deport to Iran at the moment.

Moreover, it is simply not comprehensible how such a system would avoid overburdening external border states. The consequence of implementing the extension of border procedures and the introduction of additional procedures would therefore contribute to external border states turning away from the CEAS and presumably resorting to human rights violations and other deterrent measures again.

The position of the Parliament also contradicts the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECJ judgment in Gnandi case, as it does not provide for automatic suspensive effect for first-instance appeals. Specifically, there is a risk here that people will be deported to third countries before their negative asylum decision is reviewed by a court. This also entails the risk of violating the principle of non-refoulement. That is why I voted against the Asylum Procedure Regulation. It should be noted that much of the negotiating mandate vis-à-vis the Council stems from Parliament's position in 2018. At that time, we voted in favor of this position.

3. screening regulation

With the screening regulation the Commission would like to introduce an additional step for asylum seekers before they can access the asylum system. The screening process would require member states to conduct registration, health and security checks in a short procedure. In addition, according to the Commission's proposal, the decision at the end of the screening procedure should not be subject to legal challenge, which would encourage arbitrary and unfair treatment of protection seekers. With the border procedure described above in the Asylum Procedure Regulation, there would be a risk that protection seekers would be kept in a legal no-man's land for a long time and also remain locked up for a long time.

The Screening Regulation is the only dossier of the Pact that is part of the Schengen acquis but linked to the Common European Asylum System. The Parliament has been dealing with the dossier since the rapporteur Birgit Sippel from the S&D presented her Report presented to the Interior Committee in November 2021. The Council has adopted a position on screening and is ready to enter into inter-institutional negotiations.

Screening includes the proposal of a fundamental rights monitoring mechanism at the external border, which is very important to prevent the current systematic violations of the human rights of people fleeing.

Member States would be required to screen persons arriving at the external borders and also to identify particularly vulnerable persons among them in order to provide them with appropriate assistance.

Combined with a surveillance mechanism with a broad scope and high standards of independence, this procedure would lead to less chaos and fewer human rights violations, but also to greater security and the rule of law at the external borders. In addition, audits would take place to prevent potential dangers to refugees and to combat, for example, human trafficking and organized crime.

An effective screening system would help register protection seekers quickly, distribute them rapidly, and address current human rights violations such as pushbacks or enforced disappearances.

Parliament's position on screening is, on balance, an improvement over the Commission's original proposal and, if implemented as Parliament envisages, would lead to faster registration, shorter detentions, and better standards at the external borders. Moreover, in my view, the regulation would provide an important response to systematic crimes at the external borders. That is why I voted in favor, my group abstained.

4. crisis regulation

Thanks to the Temporary Admission Directive (so-called "mass influx directive" / TPD), we have an EU instrument that has largely proven its worth in admitting millions of Ukrainians:inside the EU since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Proposal of the Commission in the Regulation on the management of crisis situations and situations of force majeure Provides for the abolition of this very directive on temporary admissionwhich would cause massive complications in the current situation.

But this regulation is also problematic in other respects, because the Commission wants to use it to allow various deviations from the minimum standards in crisis situations, which would further undermine the right of asylum. In doing so, a Member State would have to ask the Commission to determine that such a crisis situation exists. When a crisis might exist is not further defined, but the introductory remarks mention the situation at the Turkish-Greek border in March 2020 as well as the Corona pandemic. Due to the unclear definition, there is a risk that member states could instrumentalize the regulation to curtail the right to asylum.

Since the rapporteur Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). his position on the Crisis Regulation to the Home Affairs Committee in November 2021, many discussions took place to ensure a balance between measures to strengthen solidarity in crisis situations (a priority for us Greens) and exemptions from the rules of the EU asylum system in normal circumstances.

Thanks to the work of the progressive groups, there are some good elements in the Parliament's position: the mandatory redistribution of protection seekers in crisis situations, the maintenance of the TPD, a new system of rapid recognition (prima facie approach) for those arriving with clear protection needs (such as Syrians:ins in 2015-2016), and the central role for the Commission in the classification as a crisis situation.

However, the Parliament's position also established serious derogations from the rules, which allow for long detention at the external border in a crisis situation and further worsen the situation of asylum seekers. Although I see the positive elements, I abstained from voting because in my opinion the derogations are not a solution to the current situation at the EU's external borders, but make the problem worse.

Mass deaths are increasingly becoming a political failure of the EU

Erik Marquardt on March 16, 2023

On Wednesday, members of the European Parliament will debate the recent cases of people who drowned while fleeing across the Mediterranean Sea. In recent weeks, it has become apparent that rescues are being deliberately delayed and that many people could be saved. For example, on Sunday there was a shipwreck in which Italian authorities did not initiate a rescue from a ship in distress for more than 24 hours, even though ships were nearby. Thirty people died, and only 17 were rescued. At least 383 people have already died fleeing the Mediterranean this year.

The mass deaths in the Mediterranean Sea are increasingly becoming a political failure of the EU. On Sunday, 30 people drowned again because no rescue was initiated for more than 24 hours after their distress call. There would have been many ways to save the people in time, but the Italian authorities let them die.

Victim of failure to render assistance

The people have not only become victims of boat accidents, they are victims of a failure to provide assistance. If EU states accept the death of people on the Mediterranean Sea for their political goals, the EU might as well declare moral insolvency. EU states are obliged under international law to rescue people in distress at sea. But they should also be proud of saving human lives. Instead of finally facing up to their responsibility and rescuing people in distress at sea with all the means at their disposal, aid organizations are being harassed.

The dying can come to an end. In addition to sea rescue, there must be safe and legal escape routes, a structured EU asylum system, fairer distribution and a serious fight against the causes of flight. The EU Commission must give up its blockade on funding sea rescue. Those who claim to want to prevent dying must not block the allocation of funds for sea rescue. You can find my speech in parliament here.

New Frontex chief Hans Leijtens must focus on human rights

Erik Marquardt on March 1, 2023

The new Executive Director of the EU's border management agency Frontex, Hans Leitjens, will take up his post on 1 March. He was appointed in December for a five-year term. Here you can also find a chronology of the allegations against Frontex. In my press release of 28.02 I sent the following statement to journalists:

"After the resignation of Fabrice Leggeri, too little has changed at Frontex. The former Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri covered up serious crimes, lied to parliaments and documents were falsified. In recent years, the border protection agency has acted more as if it were part of organized crime than as an agency protecting the law. Even after the resignation of the old executive director, Frontex has continued to for serious human rights violations in Greece watched and shared responsibility.

Hans Leijtens must address the systematic problems at Frontex and bring the rule of law into focus. Human rights do not hinder the work of border guards, they are the basis of their work. Frontex and the national authorities must finally understand this so that the chaos at the external borders stops and border controls are finally organized according to the rule of law. Just last week, a boat carrying more than 200 people left Turkey, bypassed Greece because refugees were being illegally turned back and mistreated there, and headed for Italy hundreds of kilometers away. Long before the accident, Frontex apparently knew about the boat, but no coordinated rescue was launched. The people could have been saved, they are our dead.

In many cases, distress calls are no longer responded to seriously. When Frontex aircraft find boats in distress, the border protection agency no longer informs the surrounding ships that could quickly rescue people, but instead has Libyan militias bring them to the camp.

Our demands

There must be an independent investigation into the cases from the OLAF report take place and about what else Leggeri has covered up. In addition, further reports of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Office and contracts with the agency with companies should be published.

Leijtens should apply Article 46 of the Frontex Regulation and end operations in Greece due to systematic human rights violations. The Commission should initiate infringement proceedings against Greece. The EU Parliament must be given a permanent place on the Frontex Management Board, so that the agency will be more controllable in the future.

Frontex must More staff for human rights monitoring Set. Frontex must become an agency that protects human rights instead of violating them. This also means participating in sea rescue operations and monitoring member states' compliance with human rights. Hans Leijtens has no shoes to fill. He must lead Frontex on a new, rule-of-law path."

Volodomyr Selenskyj in the European Parliament

Erik Marquardt on February 9, 2023

Today Volodomyr Selenskyj spoke to us in the European Parliament. He emphasized the "European-Ukrainian values", fundamental and human rights and promoted Ukraine's accession to the EU.

Ukraine's accession to the EU will still take time, this is not a short-distance run, but it is right to support Ukraine on this path – especially in the fight against the Russian aggressor, who must lose this war of aggression.

Landmark court rulings in Rome and Strasbourg

Erik Marquardt on 31 January 2023

In recent weeks, there have been two landmark judgments in European courts. First, at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Croatian authorities were indicted, and second, at the Court in Rome, the Italian authorities were indicted. In both cases, the state actors were found guilty.

Three prisoners burn to death in Croatian jail cell

In December 2017, Croatia became accused by a victim at the ECHR. A fire in a Croatian police border station killed three detained fugitives. The plaintiff was seriously injured. The four people were discovered in the morning by border police in a truck coming from Serbia. They were taken to the police station, arrested and taken to a basement room used for detention of asylum seekers before they are forcibly dragged to Serbia.

In the evening, a fire broke out in the cell and no police forces were on hand to release the detainees. The Court found that there were serious deficiencies in the supervision of the detainees. The ECtHR ruled that there were two violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Italyâ€™s navy and coast guard responsible for death of 268 people

On October 11, 2013, a shipwreck occurred off Lampedusa, in which 268 people drowned. At the court in Rome, the Italian coast guard and the navy were charged with failure to render assistance by the survivors. The Libyan coast guard had pursued the boat for a long time and fired at it. As a result, the boat was in acute distress, and the people on board sent several distress calls to the coastguards in Italy and Malta. The Italian authorities arrived on the scene much too late. The court in Rome ruled after a long trial that the Italian coast guard and navy were guilty of the shipwreck and responsible for the deaths, as they did not fulfill their duties as competent authorities and did not act in accordance with international law. However, the defendants escaped conviction as the case is already time-barred. ProAsyl, together with borderline-europe and AlarmPhone, state that ânow it has to be examined whether in civil proceedings the Italian state can be obliged to pay compensation to the victimsâ.

Important symbols, but no punishment for the accused

In both cases, the state authorities were held responsible for the incidents and found guilty. However, in both cases, the defendants were not effectively punished. Nevertheless, the two verdicts send a symbolically important signal for the protection of the rights of refugees in Europe.

Question to the Commission on pushbacks from Italy to Greece

Erik Marquardt on January 27, 2023

A week ago Lighthouse Reports published a report on the results of their research on pushbacks on tourist ferries from Italy to Greece. They found evidence that asylum seekers, including children, are held in unofficial prisons – sometimes handcuffed – during the crossing in the belly of passenger ships. SRF and ARD Monitor were also involved in the research and have reported on it in television reports.

On January 25, together with five other Green MEPs, I submitted a written question to the European Commission. I would like to know to what extent these illegal pushbacks from Italy to Greece are compatible with EU asylum law, and what follow-up investigations are planned from the Commission to investigate this matter. Another question is about the bilateral readmission agreement between Italy and Greece from 1999 and whether this agreement is at all in line with the EU acquis.

You can find my collected written questions to the Commission and the answers here.

My request

Lighthouse Reports, together with SRF, ARD Monitor, Al Jazeera, Il Domani and Solomon, published a report on January 18, 2023, documenting the practice of illegal pushbacks on passenger ships from Italy to Greece. Evidence shows that asylum seekers apprehended by Italian authorities in Adriatic ports are not able to claim asylum upon arrival, but are detained in port and then pushed back to Greece. Reports from individuals of Afghan, Syrian, or Iraqi origin indicate that they have been detained, handcuffed, and confined in confined spaces in segregated facilities on passenger ships during their deportation from Italy to Greece.

In the European Commission's view, to what extent is this practice compatible with the EU acquis on asylum?
Is the bilateral readmission agreement between IT and GR compatible with the EU acquis?
What follow-up action does the European Commission intend to take following the above report?

Global inequality growing extremely fast

Erik Marquardt on 19 January 2023

Since 2020, the richest one percent of the world's population has made more wealth than the remaining 99 percent combined. At the same time, every tenth person in the world is starving. You can find the Oxfam study on this here.

Roundtable discussion on the Global Gateway Initiative

Erik Marquardt on November 18, 2022

Together with the organization Eurodad I have organized an event on the new Global Gateway Initiative organized by the European Commission. The initiative aims to bring together development goals and geopolitical interests to close the current financial gap for the implementation of development goals by mobilizing over 300 billion euros by the end of 2027. In order to facilitate an exchange between the Commission, Eurodad and representatives from the European Parliament and civil society, we met on 16/11/2022 to discuss the initiative in depth.

Our panel consisted of Farwa Sial, senior policy and advocacy officer for development finance at Eurodad, Nicolas StoetzelDeputy Head of Unit in DG INTPA of the European Commission, Shereen Talaat, Co-Executive Director of the Arab Watch Coalition, Wester Van Gaal, from the EUobserver and Frank Vanaerschot, Director at Counter Balance.

The Global Gateway a neocolonial project?

One of the major criticisms of the initiative is that it conflates the EU's geopolitical interests with development goals. The primary goal of development cooperation should be poverty reduction and not to strengthen the EU as a global political power. To ensure that the initiative does not have a neocolonial flavor, it is important to focus on a partnership of equals, the NGOs urge. Critics complain of a lack of transparency in the selection of projects, in the monitoring of development impact, and in human rights.

Investments via the private sector

The Global Gateway Initiative prioritizes investments through the private sector. However, this often only results in investments in already stronger economic regions, which means that the countries that need support the most benefit little or not at all. In addition, there is a risk that if private investment is prioritized in education and health care, those essential public facilities will be privatized and become more expensive, and thus no longer accessible to all segments of the population. There has also been criticism that the EU needs to take more responsibility and leadership within this initiative. Currently, it is not clear to partners and the public who is politically responsible for the projects. However, the Covid pandemic in particular has shown that clear leadership and accountability is needed, especially in uncertain times, to put funds where they will help those who need them. Eurodad has criticized, among other things, that partner countries in particular would also prefer other methods of financing, for example debt relief or direct financial support.

Results of the discussion – lack of communication from the Commission.

In the course of our discussion, it came out that for many of the concerns, mechanisms and rules are already in place to ensure that, for example, development goals and partner country interests are respected. However, the Commission has not communicated clearly enough in this regard, as Mr. Stoetzel had to admit.

Nicolas Stoetzel was able to dispel many concerns within our event. Together with the partner countries, relevant investment areas are identified and project proposals are developed. All projects within the Global Gateways are subject to the rules of the NDICI and the development goals of the partner countries. Clearly, it will be a challenge to reconcile the commercial interests of private investors with development objectives, but this is of enormous importance to close the financial gap. More information will be published soon on the website of the Commission to clarify the questions that came up in our discussion. In general, it must be said that it is positive when funds are mobilized and projects are financed.

European Financial Architecture for Development – an overview

Erik Marquardt on 27 October 2022

In 2018, the EU Council commissioned a group of experts to develop a Analysis of the European development cooperation and its stakeholders and to make suggestions for improvements. The report of the expert group was available in October 2019 and proposed as its main point the establishment of the new European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank (ECSDB). This should bundle and centrally coordinate European development cooperation in order to avoid duplication and competition. However, this would also have meant that nation states would have had to relinquish competencies, which is why the proposal was rejected by the Council. Two other proposals from the Council, which would have restructured and partially merged the EIB and EBRD, were also rejected by the Council. The only remaining proposal was to keep everything as it was, but to improve coordination within the EU: This version is called Status Quo+. After long negotiations on amendments, compromises and details of how the new overarching structure for European development cooperation should look like, on 26.10.2022 the EFAD Report adopted by the Development Committee.

Green position on the StatusQuo+

So our work as Greens in the European Parliament was to shape the report on the Status Quo+, with many amendments, so that it represents a real improvement in the design of European development cooperation. Through intensive discussions, we Greens managed to sharpen several elements in the report and to leave out other things that in our opinion have nothing to do with development cooperation, such as using development funds for migration defense. Among other things, we were able to put a focus on climate projects and biodiversity promotion, and add monitoring mechanisms and feedback analysis to projects. Unfortunately, there are also a few items that we are not so happy with. These include an amendment on the sustainability transformation of the African energy sector. Not so bad, actually. However, the focus is not on sustainable energy access for all people in Africa, but on sustainable energy production for export.

Climate targets in the EFAD report

One of our key demands was to prioritize climate and development goals over trade and geopolitical interests. It was important to us that all development funds are compatible with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and contribute significantly to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially projects that are supported through mixed financing. Development funds should no longer be spent on sectors that fuel the climate crisis, and at least 30% of the funds should clearly contribute to achieving the climate goals. Furthermore, it was important to us that the new EU taxonomy on energy resources should at most serve as a minimum standard for investments in the energy sector, but actually the development banks should be a best-practice example for sustainable change to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and the SDGs.

Actors in European development cooperation

With regard to the European Investment Bank (EIB), several points were important to us. On the one hand, the improvement of its social and environmental policies, especially with a focus on the protection of human rights and endangered ecosystems. This also includes increasing transparency and control in the cooperation with subcontractors and their activities. In addition, it was important to us that we urgently need a clear mandate description for the new branch EIB Global and also here more transparency about its activities. In order to increase transparency and control at the EIB, we demanded that the European Investment Bank, as well as the Commission, regularly communicate with the Parliament to report on their activities. To strengthen partnerships between the EU and developing countries, we have also called for the meaningful involvement of local populations, civil society, and non-governmental organizations in development projects.

Private funds for development cooperation

In development cooperation, there is a considerable gap between the financial resources that are available and the amount that is actually needed. Mixed financing is often used as a solution. Mixed financing means that private investments are supported by public funds and secured against risks. We have managed to limit mixed financing to areas where, after careful evaluation, it can add value to the local economy. This is because often this method is highly praised, but there are studies that question its help, especially for the most vulnerable developing countries. The protection of essential public services, such as education, health, and social security, should remain a priority and should not, under any circumstances, reinforce existing inequalities.

Policy Coherence for Development, Gender Mainstreaming and Better Coordination.

Another elementary point that we were able to include in the compromises was a call to strengthen the policy coherence measures of all actors involved. This means that any measures and initiatives in different policy areas have to be aligned with other projects, so that, for example, the achievements of one development project are not cancelled out by another project. The report also calls on EFAD actors to strengthen due diligence in their operations, mainstream gender equality, and protect human rights in all operations. The EIB and EBRD are encouraged to coordinate their work and projects more effectively and to clarify their division of labor so that each bank can focus on its respective core competencies, thus avoiding duplication and undercutting.

Now we go into the trilogy

As you can see, the report tries to make significant improvements in many areas and we Greens were able to influence the new overarching structure for European development cooperation with our ideas. Once the report has been adopted by the Parliament, the next phase will begin: the trilogues. I hope that we will be able to push through many of the compromises we negotiated in the Parliament in the triologues, in order to make European development cooperation more sustainable and effective in the future.

Civil society talks in WrocÅaw: Resilience and Resistance

Erik Marquardt on 26 October 2022

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

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

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

Double standards in Poland

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

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

Great interest

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

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

Criminalization

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

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

The Polish perspective

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

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

Shrinking Spaces

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