How the EU helps in Ukraine  

Erik Marquardt on 21 June 2022

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

Humanitarian aid and EU Civil Protection Mechanism since 2014

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

Function of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism

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

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

International Donor Conference in May 2022

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

My classification

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

Frontex – EU Parliament refuses budget discharge

Erik Marquardt on May 4, 2022

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

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

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

Commission ignores service directive for pushbacks in Croatia

Erik Marquardt on May 3, 2022

Photo: Erik Marquardt

The Croatian police have received official instructions for pushbacks. In the instruction, which has now become public, Croatian border guards are admonished not to allow themselves to be filmed during pushbacks in the future and to search the surroundings for hidden cameras before carrying out the pushbacks. The pushbacks themselves are to continue as usual. In its response, the Commission refuses to even acknowledge that Croatia systematically conducts pushbacks, despite the fact that they 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, even though Croatia's practice at its external borders clearly violates the Schengen Borders Code. Where there are problems, the Commission simply declares itself not responsible. The Commission thus continues to turn a blind eye to the systematic human rights violations.

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

Our request

Subject: Pushbacks by the Croatian police

As the Croatian portal Index.hr reports, Croatian border guards receive service instructions for pushbacks. Thus, they follow orders and do not perform pushbacks at their own discretion, as the Croatian government has claimed so far. The instruction in question is a reaction to a case filed by the Mirror and the ARD video released in October in which Croatian border guards were filmed engaging in violent pushbacks. In response to the Commission's response to my inquiry regarding the videos, I have been waiting for almost four months.

In the instruction that has now become public, Croatian border guards are admonished not to allow themselves to be filmed during pushbacks in the future and to search the surrounding area for hidden cameras before conducting pushbacks. The pushbacks themselves are to continue as usual.

1. how does the Commission intend to investigate these state-ordered pushbacks, and what significance does it intend to attach to the results of this investigation with regard to the procedure for Croatia's accession to the Schengen area?

2. whether the Commission expects any changes to be made to the 'independent monitoring mechanism' at the external border, given that the Croatian Government is clearly not interested in investigating human rights violations for which it is itself responsible?

3. whether the Commission finds credible the statements by the Croatian Ministry of the Interior to the effect that the Croatian Government had nothing to do with the pushbacks and that it was a matter of misconduct on the part of individual officials?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 29.4.2022

1. the investigation of alleged criminal acts by national authorities is the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission has consistently asked the Croatian authorities to investigate alleged ill-treatment of migrants. Croatia's full accession to the Schengen area without internal border controls requires a unanimous Council decision, pending adoption. The JHA Council of 9-10 December 2021 concluded that Croatia fulfills the necessary conditions to apply all parts of the Schengen acquis. The Commission considers that Croatia has taken the necessary measures to ensure that all the Requirements for the application
of the Schengen acquis are fulfilled and remain fulfilled.

2 While the Commission services, in cooperation with the Croatian authorities, seek to ensure that Croatia's "independent monitoring mechanism" functions effectively, the establishment of the mechanism, and in particular its composition, remains in Croatian hands. Under the independent monitoring mechanism, a publicly available mid-year (interim) report was issued in December 2020. The Croatian authorities informed the Commission and the Parliament on how they are implementing the initial recommendations. The Advisory Committee – of which the Commission and relevant stakeholders are members (and which is not part of the Mechanism) – will make recommendations on how to improve the functioning of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to ensure that applicable EU law is respected.

3. the Commission is not in a position to assess the credibility of the remarks to which the Honourable Member refers. However, the Commission's position on fundamental rights is clear: any measures taken by Member States to prevent or deter unauthorised crossing of the EU's external borders must fully comply with relevant EU law, including in particular the Charter
of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union be in accordance with the law. Any inhuman or degrading treatment is unlawful. Therefore, any misconduct by individual border guards should be subject to investigation by the competent authorities and, if necessary, prosecution.

This is how the scheme by which the EU accepts refugees from Ukraine works

Erik Marquardt on 11 March 2022

All 27 EU countries are ready to accept refugees from Ukraine. After a meeting of EU interior ministers:inside on 03 March 2022 it was announced that the EU would A guideline which guarantees war refugees from Ukraine protection in the EU - without costly asylum procedures. It is great that Europe is finally sticking together when it comes to taking in refugees. By activating the directive, refugees from Ukraine will be offered protection and perspective without bureaucracy. The directive also clearly states that refugees have a right to work and become self-sufficient. Member states must also ensure that refugees are either provided with adequate housing or given resources to take care of such housing themselves. Medical care and access to the education system must also be guaranteed. 

Current flight movements from Ukraine

Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania have opened their borders and allow all people from Ukraine to enter. The refugees do not need a passport, which many Ukrainians do not have. The non-EU country of Moldova also allows refugees to enter. However, due to the general mobilization, Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 cannot leave Ukraine in most cases. So far, according to UNHCR (as of March 11, 2022), more than 2.5 million people have fled Ukraine, in addition to more than one million internally displaced persons in Ukraine. Putin's war of aggression has led to the largest movement of refugees in Europe since the end of the Second World War.

The legal basis 

The legal basis for this action is the so-called Mass inflow Directive 2001/55/EC. Denmark is the only EU state outside the scope of the directive. The directive provides a mechanism for the EU-wide coordinated reception of large numbers of refugees beyond the individual asylum procedure and beyond the Dublin system. Responsible for determining a "mass influx" is the Council of the European Union. The Parliament is only informed of the decision, but is not allowed to comment on it in advance. 

This law was created to grant protection after the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, but has not yet been used. In 2015, it was not applied because it was not foreseeable whether the necessary EU decision would be reached.

Where do we go from here?

In principle, the directive stipulates a minimum period of one year, but this can be extended. The actual implementation of the directive is up to the member states. They must now make commitments about how many refugees they want to take in. The Ukrainian refugees can choose an EU member state in which they will receive protection under this directive.

Unfortunately, the directive leaves one important point open, namely how to deal with third-country nationals. Germany wants to accept all refugees from Ukraine regardless of their nationality. There will also be no upper limit, said Interior Minister Faeser.

Challenges 

Currently, the member states, especially those on the border with Ukraine, are facing very great challenges. So far, there are not enough services for vulnerable groups such as children. The situation at the borders and the initial reception is not good and needs to improve quickly. It is also important that access to state services – schooling, medical care – is guaranteed quickly and easily.  

My demands and proposals 

It is important that the Commission now coordinates that refugees who do not have a specific country of destination are assigned to Member States so that we arrive at a fair distribution. Member States that take in many refugees should receive financial support from the EU in this regard. The most important thing, however, is that the member states implement the directive openly and appropriately and also grant access to third-country nationals and do not screen out those people who have had to flee Ukraine but are not Ukrainian citizens.  

In recent years, refugees from war zones have been turned back again and again, although this was forbidden and inhumane. One can only hope that the current crisis will help the EU states to adhere to the applicable law and quickly implement today's decision. Regardless of the directive and the criteria set, all those seeking protection have the right to access the asylum procedure. There must be no rejections.

As shadow rapporteur, I am committed to improving the scope for action of civil society organizations

Erik Marquardt on March 9, 2022

Civil society organizations play a central role in democracy and the development of civil society. However, they can only carry out their work effectively if there is no undue interference, intimidation or criminalization. Unfortunately, the spaces for many NGOs have become smaller in recent years. 37 % of local or regional organizations in the EU have indicated that the situation for them has worsened or even significantly worsened in 2020. Unfortunately, attempts are being made in many EU countries to make life difficult for refugees and people who want to help refugees, also through arrests or the abuse of existing laws.. A current example of this is the Court case in Greece against Seán Binder & Sarah Mardini and 22 others who face up to 25 years in prison. The charges are flimsy and are simply about punishing people who saved others from drowning to deter others.

The European Parliament's Home Affairs Committee has requested a so-called own-initiative report (INI), on which I worked as a shadow rapporteur. I want our report to better protect and regulate the spaces of action for civil society organizations in the EU. The INI was adopted by a large majority in this week's plenary session. 

Our demands to the Commission

  • An understandable and concrete strategy for the protection and development of civil society and its organizations. Specifically, an implementation of the already existing instruments, introduction of a monitoring mechanism, elimination of legal loopholes and a real political recognition of the role of civil society organizations.
  • Creation of an EU alert mechanism, through which civil society organizations can report threats and the necessary steps can be taken accordingly. 
  • Establishment of clear criteria for the scope of action of civil society organizations and their significance. These criteria are intended to prevent laws from being enacted that restrict the spaces for action. 
  • Monitoring the implementation of EU law and its compliant application and interpretation. If EU states violate this, infringement proceedings are to be initiated. 
  • Ensure the promotion of civil society organizations so that they can implement the roles and tasks assigned to them in the various sectoral policies. 
  • An EU-wide emergency grant for civil society organizations at risk.
  • Active cooperation with civil society organizations regarding the elaboration of work programs and funding mechanisms to ensure transparency, flexibility and user:friendliness. 
  • Greater involvement and training of civil society organizations regarding monitoring of expenditures through EU funds at the member state level. 
  • Ensure that CSOs are involved in the implementation and monitoring of the national recovery plan and other funds under shared management and verify that national recovery plans meet the needs for CSOs. 
  • Ensure that GONGOs, "NGOs" strongly led by certain states and their interests, are not funded by the EU. 
  • Adopt a set of rules on cross-border donations & harmonization.  
  • EP President to appoint a Vice President for Dialogue with Civil Society Organizations. 

The scope of action of civil society organizations must be better protected. Our INI was adopted by the Home Affairs Committee and will now be forwarded to the Commission. I will keep you updated here as soon as there is news on the topic.

„Partnership at eye level“ at EU-Africa summit a long way off

Erik Marquardt on 22 February 2022

Speaker of Parliament Roberta Metsola with Alassane Ouattara, President of Côte d'Ivoire and Nana Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana

On February 17 and 18 took place the sixth and corona long awaited EU-Africa summit was held, at which the leaders of the African Union and the European Union meet every three years, alternately in Europe and Africa. The summit was organized around seven different "roundtables." But most of the outcomes were set beforehand behind closed doors, without significant consultation with civil society or involvement of the parliamentary level. This is all the more worrying because these decisions have far-reaching consequences. Here, I assess what the summit means for issues of migration, global immunization justice, and cooperation with African states.

What issues were negotiated?

The official list of topics ranges from growth financing, vaccine production, agriculture, education, culture, climate change, digitization and much more: Everywhere, the states of Africa are to be promoted in order to march together at eye level and as "closest partners and neighbors" in the direction of "solidarity, security, peace and sustainability" – as far as full-bodied claims go. But a real partnership at eye level unfortunately does not exist. For the sake of assessment, I would like to shine a spotlight on two central points of the summit:

Donations instead of self-determination: Rejection of Global Immunization Justice

Fighting the Corona pandemic would have offered a historic opportunity to break with old patterns of dependency. Already, the pandemic has massively exacerbated global inequalities. These divisions will continue to grow: While vaccination coverage in Europe is around 70%, and could be significantly higher if there was sufficient vaccination preparedness, only 12% of people in the African Union have had access to vaccines. It will likely take years to close this gap. Releasing the vaccine patents would be a watershed moment: establishing independent vaccine production is a matter of months, not years, after the granted release. Accordingly, the patent release has been vehemently demanded by African countries. However, the EU continues to categorically reject this and instead hands out handouts: 450 million doses are to be delivered by mid-2022, plus support payments for the distribution and administration of the vaccine doses to the population. This further cements the dependence of the AU states on Europe and on international pharmaceutical companies.

European borders in Africa: migration control to be expanded

In the area of flight and migration, too, a "partnership of equals" is a long way off. In fact, current agreements with African states are only very abstractly about combating the causes of flight, but very concretely about combating flight and migration itself. There are attempts to tie this even more closely to the allocation of funds. This will force states in Africa toThe EU's policy of building borders and limiting global freedom of movement is becoming more and more openly discussed. In the meantime, there is increasingly open talk of a Frontex deployment in Africa thought and negotiated, although the European Border Management Agency is currently failing to apply applicable law in Europe as well. 

Overall, the EU has long lacked a comprehensive approach that goes beyond the buzzword "fighting the causes of flight. Increasing causes of flight cannot be permanently compensated for with higher fences and more restrictive agreements, and this policy certainly cannot be reconciled with European values and fundamental human rights. 

Conclusion of the Summit: Old Dependencies Instead of "New Deals

The fine words of the joint final declaration can hardly conceal the fact that behind the facade of a departure into a common and equal future, there is little that can live up to this claim: In many cases, purported new investment sums are merely repurposed from commitments already made. In other places, promising showcase projects are presented, but they can hardly have a broad impact. While the final declaration contains some very welcome passages, for example on education financing and the transfer to special drawing rights - implementation of which remains to be seen - there are other sections that are far more critical and have therefore been examined in greater detail above. So even if there are selective improvements: Overall, the result is unfortunately a consolidation of old dependencies and inequalities in many places instead of the endeavored "new deal." Unfortunately, it will be a long time before "solidarity, equality and peace" find their way from flowery final declarations into the real world.

Commission refuses to respond to pushbacks by Croatia

Erik Marquardt on February 17, 2022

Erik Marquardt

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.

Commission considers Greek processing of asylum applications to be contrary to European law

Erik Marquardt on January 25, 2022

Johanna Feiler

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.

Question: Greek law on return procedures

Erik Marquardt on January 6, 2022

Photo: Mika Baumeister/Unsplash

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.

Question: Prison for solidarity with refugees

Erik Marquardt on 21 December 2021

Soledad Amarilla / Ministerio de Cultura de la Nación

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.

EN
EN DE