Category: 7.2 Irregular immigration

WIKI-LEX : The “new” EU Border Guard proposal

FOREWORD The aim of a wiki-lex exercise launched by Statewatch and FREE Group is to make easier monitoring the legislative preparatory work at EU level notably when so called “trilogues” start and it is not clear who is proposing what in view of a possible early compromise already when the European Parliament adopt its formal position (so called “first reading agreement”) or later when the Council in turn adopt its own position and the EP do not submit new amendments (“early second reading agreements”). NOTA BENE : THIS POST IS ALSO PUBLISHED AS AN INDEPENDENT PAGE ON THIS BLOG

BACKGROUND

The idea of establishing an European System of Border Guards (ESBG) has to be seen in the context of the long-term quest/search for an appropriate governance structure to ensure the management of EU external borders. The process had started with the new competences granted to the EU by the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 as re-indorsed by the Tampere Conclusions of 1999 pushed forward into the limelight of public attention by the events of 9/11 and debated during the negotiations of the draft Constitutional Treaty [1] and thereafter mirrored in the Lisbon Treaty.

Since then, Article 77 (1)(c) TFEU codified at Treaty level the objective of “..the gradual introduction of an integrated management system for external borders.“ Article 80 of the same Treaty made clear that: “The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States”.

It is worth noting that until now the notion of “integrated management system for external borders” (IBM) has not yet been translated in the EU legislation even if the Council has already in its 2006 Conclusions highlighted some of its possible composing elements [2].  Yet still – despite the need unanimously recognized by the European institutions to create a “mechanism or common services to control external borders” – subsequent studies undertaken by Commission and Council were not able to conclusively resolve the question of whether there should be more of an “integrated force model” or rather a “network of national border forces”[3].

The issue came back on the Institutions agenda in 2013 when the new governance framework of Schengen  as been adopted and a closer interaction between national Border Guards and Frontex has been established in the framework of the Rapid Border Intervention Team  in specific sections of the borders and overall in the framework of EUROSUR.

Already at that time the need of more coordinated interventions and procedure in case of emergency in case of extraordinary pressure on specific sections of the Schengen external borders was debated and a first set of amendments was adopted in the Schengen Border Code by charging FRONTEX  of regularly monitor the EU external borders as well as detecting the possible external threats. In parallel with this security-led evolution the EU has also adopted, notwithstanding the reservations of some Member States (FR, Malta, …)  the first set of rules for search and rescue in international waters in the framework of joint operations coordinated by Frontex (EU Regulation 656/14) by acknowledging the importance of that agency in protecting fundamental rights (such as the right to life).

THE NEW  LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

(A) The COMMISSION PROPOSAL  Continue reading “WIKI-LEX : The “new” EU Border Guard proposal”

Is the European Council responsible for the so-called “EU-Turkey Agreement” ? The issue is on the Court of Justice table…

by Emilio DE CAPITANI

Until now the legal nature of so called “EU-Turkey Agreement” has been debated at academic level (see the posts here and here ) and briefly presented and debated before the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament following a presentation by the legal service of that institution (see the transcript here). The latter has considered that the so called EU-Turkey “deal” is not legally binding but is just a political catalog of measures  adopted (or to be adopted) on their own specific legal basis (no matter if in their recitals reference is made to the EU-Turkey deal).

Other scholars and even Institution representatives (such as the European Council President Tusk and the President of Turkey Erdogan) have presented the “deal” as a binding measure what means that it has to be “implemented” in all its parts in compliance with the bona fide principle which should govern international relations.

On its side the European Parliament has until now followed its legal service approach by considering that, no matter of what had been “negotiated” at head of state level, it remain free to adopt or not the legislative budgetary and operational measures implementing the agreement. It has then decided, as budgetary authority, to finance the first three billions transfer to Turkey but, as legislative authority  has still to decide what to do with the amendment to the Visa legislation granting the visa waiver to the Turkish nationals and on the implementation of the so called “1 per 1 “principle. The impression is that on this issue the EP prefers more barking than biting by endorsing the Machiavellian project (launched at the end of 2015 by Germany, the Dutch Presidency, the Commission Vice President Timmermans) to ask Turkey support to  overcome the opposition to the EU migration and asylum policies inside the EU of the Visegrad Countries.

Now a new event could possibly create some movement.  The European Council has been notified on 31 May and 2 June 2016 of three similar applications for annulment lodged under Article 263 TFEU with the General of the EU Court of Justice.[1]

The three applications are directed against the European Council and request the Court to annul the “EU-Turkey statement” which was issued following the meeting of 18 March 2016 of the Members of the European Council and their Turkish counterpart (See press release 114/16 of 18 March 2016).

The applications in Cases T-192/16 and T-257/16 state that they are brought on behalf of individuals who are nationals of Pakistan and who are currently staying at the “No Borders Refugee Camp”, in Lesbos, Greece. The application in Case T-193/16 states that it is brought on behalf of an individual who is a national of Afghanistan and who is currently staying at the “Onofiyta Refugee Camp”, in Athens, Greece.  All three applicants have applied for anonymity to the Court, requesting that their names should not be rendered public.

The applicants challenge the “EU-Turkey statement” of 18 March 2016.

They consider that the “EU-Turkey statement” constitutes an agreement entered into by the European Council with Turkey and  claim that it is an act that produces legal effects adversely affecting the applicants’ rights and interests. The applicants argue, inter alia, that this act  rendered them at risk of refoulement to Turkey or ‘chain refoulement‘ to Pakistan or Afghanistan and hence compelled them to make their applications for international protection in Greece, against their will.

In support of their request for annulment of the “EU-Turkey statement” the applicants raise a number of pleas, among which:

  • failure to comply with the procedures set out in Article 218 TFEU and/or 78(3) TFEU;
  • failure to apply Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001;[2]
  • incompatibility with EU fundamental rights, notably with Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights,
  • invalidity on the grounds that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights[3] and the Court of Justice[4] shows that there are serious flaws in the present Greek asylum system at all levels, including absence of an effective remedy and deficient reception facilities;
  • incompatibility with the prohibition of direct and indirect refoulement;
  • invalidity on the grounds of being based on the unlawful conclusive assumption that Turkey is a safe country;
  • invalidity on the grounds of breach of the prohibition of collective expulsion.

The applicants have requested that the case be adjudicated under an expedited procedure, in accordance with Article 152 of the General Court’s rules of procedure. The European Council will therefore have to lodge its defence within one month of the service of the applications unless the General Court decides to reject the application for expedition. In that latter case the Court may extend the deadline by one month.

So let’s see if there is Judge in Berlin…

NOTES

[1]           Cases T-192 and T-193 were notified on 31 May 2016 and Case T-257/16 was notified on 2 June 2016.

[2]           Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, O.J., 7.8.2001, L 212/12.

[3]           M.S.SS v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) Judgment of the ECtHR Grand Chamber, dated 21 January 2011.

[4]           Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N. S. and Others, Judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 ECLI:EU:C:2011:865

Detecting foreign fighters: the reinvigoration of the Schengen Information System in the wake of terrorist attacks

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON “EU IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM LAW AND POLICY”

By Niovi Vavoula, Queen Mary, University of London

Since the past two decades, the exploitation of new technologies and the emphasis on collecting and exchanging information have been key aspects of the EU counter-terrorism strategy. An array of information exchange schemes have been developed on the basis of an intelligence-led approach, according to which the more data available, the more efficient the policies may be (for an overview of EU information exchange mechanisms see here).

The aim of the present blog post is to assess the role of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the fight against the growing phenomenon of the “Foreign Fighters”. Landmarks in this context are, apart the terrorist events of 9/11 and the Madrid bombings in 2004, the recent attacks in Paris in January and November 2015 as well as in Brussels on 22 March 2016. It is demonstrated the extent to which the functionalities and the potential of the SIS have been slowly revisited in the wake of events with limited progress up to date. Despite the growing overreliance to this system has not been accompanied by proven effectiveness, the EU legislator calls for further exploitation of the database at the expense of fundamental rights and EU citizenship. The Commission proposal amending the Schengen Borders Code regarding the control of the crossing of external borders by foreign fighters should finally make the system effective but it could violate the principle of proportionality.

The SIS II in a nutshell

At the heart of the compensatory measures for the abolition of internal border controls, the SIS was established under the Schengen Convention and came into operation in 1995. Its overarching purpose was twofold; to maintain public order and security and to apply the provisions of the Convention relating to the movement of persons in the Schengen Area. On the criminal law side, it held basic alphanumeric data categorised in the form of ‘alerts’ on people or objects wanted for criminal law and policing purposes, such as persons wanted for arrest to be surrendered/extradited or missing persons. On the immigration law side, which in practice dominated the content of the database, it stored data on third-country nationals to be refused entry to the Schengen area. The system functioned on a hit / no hit basis, but it was supplemented by the SIRENE, which provided the infrastructure for exchanging additional information between national authorities.

Since April 2013, the SIS has been substituted by the SIS II so as to accommodate the new Member States after the enlargements of 2004 and 2007 and insert new functionalities. In this context, the current legal framework of the SIS II comprises of Regulation 1987/2006 involving the immigration functions of the system, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA regarding its use for policing and criminal law purposes and Regulation 1986/2006 concerning access by vehicle registration authorities. The overarching purpose of ensuring a high level of security remains the same, albeit worded more broadly.

First round: new functionalities of the SIS after 9/11 and Madrid bombings  Continue reading “Detecting foreign fighters: the reinvigoration of the Schengen Information System in the wake of terrorist attacks”

Dublin is dead ! Long live Dublin ! The 4 May 2016 proposal of the European Commission

Original published on CDRE Site on May 20th,2016

by Dr. Constantin Hruschka,

(Lecturer at the University of Bielefeld )

The Dublin system has been declared dead on numerous occasions over the past decade. It has proven to be highly dysfunctional from the beginning, as the allocation of responsibility did not have the intended effects (i.e. the prevention of “refugees in orbit” and of “asylum shopping”).

Nevertheless, Dublin procedures and Dublin transfers are still taking place and the system is still operating. It will continue as the Commission proposal released on 4 May 2016 is a change in the continuity rather than the reform necessary for a more workable and efficient system.

In its 2007 evaluation of the Dublin system, the EU Commission already described these effects and suggested a reform of the system, which then consisted of the Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (“Dublin-II-Regulation”) and the Regulation (EC) No. 2725/2000 (“Eurodac-Regulation”) as well as the related Implementing Regulations (Regulation (EC) No. 1560/2003 and Regulation (EC) No. 407/2002). The suggested reform was debated between 2008 and 2013 and led to the adoption of recast Regulations for Dublin (Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013(“Dublin-III-Regulation”)) and Eurodac (Regulation (EU) No. 603/2013) in 2013 and to changes to the Dublin Implementing Regulation (Regulation (EU) 118/2014). The main aims of the recast were to enhance the efficiency of the system and to provide for higher standards of protection for asylum seekers.

The practical challenges for the system remained obvious – ranging from the cooperation difficulties between the different Member States in the responsibility allocation procedures to practical questions on the implementation of transfers and the actual access of asylum seekers to procedures for international protection. Depending on the analysts’ perspective, the scapegoats for these apparent dysfunctions were either the Member States, the national administrations, the courts, the asylum seekers or the system as such.

Under the pressure of the so-called “migratory crisis” in 2015, the Commission launched on 4 May 2016 – as a first step of a full revision of the CEAS –  a recast Dublin Regulation (“Dublin IV”), a recast Eurodac-Regulation as well as a proposal for the establishing of a European Union Agency for Asylum. The latter two proposals are less relevant for the responsibility allocation mechanism as such as they would only be used as tools to enhance the efficiency of the whole CEAS in a broader migratory context and will therefore not be analysed in this blog entry. The latter aims at explaining and analysing the new proposals from a two-fold perspective that is derived from the aims of the 2013 recast: is the new proposal firstly likely to enhance efficiency and secondly, are the human rights obligations adhered to?

The Dublin IV proposal aims at preserving the Dublin system as “the cornerstone” of the CEAS. The proposed changes are supposed to :

  1. streamline the Dublin rules “to enable an effective operation of the system, both in relation to the swifter access of applicants to the procedure for granting international protection and to the capacity of Member States’ administrations to apply the system”;
  2. contribute to the prevention “of secondary movements within the EU, including by discouraging abuses and asylum shopping“;
  3. provide “for tools enabling sufficient responses to situations of disproportionate pressure on Member States’ asylum systems” through a “corrective allocation mechanism” that ensures a “high degree of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility” among Member States.

The superordinate aim is to provide for a solid basis for a fair and sustainable EU asylum policy.

This blog entry explains and analyses why the new proposal is not likely to enhance practical efficiency of the system and to what extent it is incompatible with fundamental rights and general principles of Community as well as international law.

Streamlining the Dublin rules is bound to fail

The proposal identifies – in line with the communication of 6 April 2016 – the lack of streamlined Dublin rules and secondary movements as the main challenge for the Dublin system. Measures to streamline the rules and to prevent secondary movements therefore form a key part of the proposal. The variety of measures proposed range from mere deletions of obsolete or practically irrelevant provisions to very substantial changes. Examples of the former is the abolition of the illegal stay criterion (Article 13 (2) Dublin-III-Regulation) and the conciliation mechanism (Article 37 Dublin-III-Regulation). The latter are for e.g. the possibility to transfer beneficiaries of international protection under the Dublin rules (Article 18 (1)(e) of the proposal), the changes with regard to the time limits and the new rules for take back procedures (Article 21 of the proposal).

From a practical implementation perspective some proposed changes are bound to fail. This is especially true for the newly proposed “pre-Dublin procedure”. Article 3(3) of the proposal sets out an obligation for the Member State where the first application was lodged to examine the questions of whether there are reasons to conduct an inadmissibility or accelerated (based on) procedures  – as foreseen by the Asylum Procedures Directive – before carrying out the procedure for the determination of responsibility. These procedures shall be conducted if the safe third country, first country of asylum or safe country of origin rules may be applied, or if the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to national security or public order. The Member State carrying out such a procedure also stays responsible for the asylum procedure (Article 3 (4) and (5) of the proposal). This consequence will hamper the practical relevance of the inadmissibility and accelerated procedures as Member States – as e.g. highlighted by the 2007 evaluation  – are generally reluctant to assume responsibility outside the order of the criteria.

Most of the proposed changes enter into the category of making it clear to the applicant “that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection” (emphasis added). As a first step, the proposal foresees an obligation for the Member State conducting a Dublin procedure to inform the applicant about this setup of the system (Article 6 (1)(a) of the proposal).

Further administrative measures to this end are:

  • The abolition of the time limit of 12 months for the applicability of the illegal entry criterion (Article 15 of the proposal),
  • The introduction of “take back notifications” instead of “take back requests” (Article 26 of the proposal),
  • The abolition of the conditions for a “cessation of responsibility” that are currently contained in Article 19 Dublin-III-Regulation, and
  • The abolition of the binding nature of the time limits in take back procedures and of the time limit for the transfer (Articles 26 and 30 of the proposal).

Article 19 currently comprises a cessation responsibility if the asylum seeking person has either been provided with a residence document outside the asylum scheme or has departed for a certain period or after a return decision or removal order from the territory of the Member States. The changes to the time limits also comprise a significant shortening of the time limits for the procedural steps (Articles 21pp of the proposal).

These proposals essentially lead to a return to the situation of the Dublin Convention with shorter but non-binding time limits. One of the main reasons for the introduction of binding time limits was that the evaluation of the Dublin Convention brought to light that non-binding time limits in practice create “asylum-seekers in orbit” for longer periods of time. Moreover, the time limit for the lodging of take back requests was explicitly introduced by the Dublin-III-Regulation to further counter such situations. It is difficult to imagine that this problem of “asylum-seekers in orbit” will not be further enhanced with the return to a system of short and often non-binding time limits.

As a last but very important point the Commission intends to limit the scope for the application of the discretionary clauses for Member States (Article 19 of the proposal). It is suggested that the discretionary clauses should only be applicable as long as the responsibility determination procedure has not ended and that they should be limited to family reasons. The use of the clause for other humanitarian or cultural grounds shall no longer be possible. This limitation is problematic from different perspectives. From a humanitarian perspective it is foreseeable that the limitation of the scope for the discretionary clauses will also contribute to an increase in the number of “asylum-seekers in orbit.”

Preventing secondary movements by violating human rights

To some extent, the Commission proposal aims at countering the phenomenon of “asylum-seekers in orbit” by introducing an article on obligations of asylum seekers (Article 5 of the proposal) comprising:

  • The obligation of lodging an asylum application in the Member State of first entry,
  • The obligation to speedily provide all elements and information relevant for the Dublin procedure and
  • The obligation to comply with the transfer decision and to be present and available to the authorities in this regard.

Non-compliance shall be sanctioned: According to Article 6 of the proposal, the procedure shall be conducted far more quickly in these situations and the applicant shall “not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care” during the Dublin procedure. Such limited access to social rights is incompatible with human rights standards as set out by the 1951 Convention, the ECHR and the CRC as well as by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Moreover, the obligatory nature of this provision will also create difficult constitutional and human rights related problems in most Member States as a minimal access to social rights is often guaranteed by the Constitutions of Member States.

Also some of the further restrictions foreseen raise severe human rights issues. Inter alia, it is proposed to limit the scope of the right to appeal. It shall only be guaranteed for situations of systemic deficiencies and for family reasons (Article 28 of the proposal). This proposal was introduced despite the pending CJEU cases on some of the aspects of legality of these limitations to appeals (see e.g.Ghezelbash, Karim and Shiri). From a merely European Law perspective, it is hardly imaginable that the proposed limitation does not violate the standards set out by the jurisprudence since Van Gend and Loos. Additionally, the proposed more extensive use of Eurodac and the related enhanced obligations to collect and enter data in Eurodac (Articles 22 and 23 of the proposal) raise significant doubts regarding its compatibility with established data protection principles.

The Commission proposes the application of rules of the Dublin procedure to beneficiaries of international protection (Article 18 (1)(e) of the proposal). This proposal raises further human rights issues as the system is not designed to be applied to persons that actually have a right to reside in one of the Member States. From a Schengen perspective, the compatibility of this proposal with Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive is at least doubtful. Furthermore, such restrictions for beneficiaries of international protection are at least paradoxical in an area of free movement.

The proposal foresees that in the case of the absence of family members or relatives, the country where the first asylum application was lodged shall be responsible for the examination of an asylum application of an unaccompanied minor (Article 8 (4) and Article 10 of the proposal). This is very problematic from a human rights perspective and the proposed provision also contradicts to some extent the CJEU judgement in M.A. and others. From a practical perspective, it is foreseeable that the necessary “assessment of his/her best interests”prior to a transfer (Article 8(4) of the proposal) will lead to non-uniform application of this rule as Member States have significantly diverging approaches to the protection of the rights of the child in asylum procedures. The situation will most likely be as divergent as it was before the CJEU ruling.

Two changes foreseen are likely to extend the human rights compatibility of the system. The first proposal concerns the extension of the definition of family members to siblings and the abolition of the necessity that the family already existed in the country of origin (Article 2g of the proposal). These changes will not solve all the related practical problems in this area but are important steps towards an enhanced protection of the family unity. The second foresees a maximum duration of Dublin detention of a total of six weeks (Article 29 of the proposal) whereas the current system allows for a maximum of twelve weeks of Dublin detention.

Allocation of responsibility in situations of disproportionate pressure

The Commission proposes the abolition of the early warning, preparedness and crisis management mechanism (Art. 33 Dublin-III-Regulation). And suggests the introduction – as a tool for situations of disproportionate pressure on Member States – of a corrective allocation mechanism. The proposed mechanism (Article 34 of the proposal) seems to be administratively unworkable and politically illusory looking at the on-going discussions since the first attempt to establish such a mechanism as part of the Dublin-III-Proposal (Article 31 of the Dublin-III-Proposal of 2008). The current difficulties in setting up the relocation mechanism that was introduced in 2015 also raise the question of whether it would be actually possible to organise the necessary transfers. Nevertheless, looking at alternative ways to allocate responsibility is inevitable for the setup of a real CEAS that actually does what an asylum system should do: providing protection for the person in need of protection.

Conclusion

The proposal has been essentially influenced by an evaluation of the application of the Dublin-III-Regulation and of the administrative workability of the Dublin system conducted by the Commission. At first sight, this evaluation seems to have been conducted in a hasty, non-thorough way as the recast proposal gives the impression of a certain disorientation regarding political context and historical awareness: many of the “newly” proposed measures and solutions have already been (unsuccessfully) “tested” in earlier “versions” of the Dublin system or have already been (unsuccessfully) already proposed in a more favourable political climate.

Moreover, the proposed measures as a whole seem to be guided by the scientifically not validated idea that the main trigger for onward movements are diverging practices in Member States asylum systems. The CEAS is portrayed in these measures as a self-referential system that triggers push and pull factors. The scientifically validated main reasons for onward movements such as family links or cultural reasons or the economical situation of a specific country are widely ignored by the proposed measures. The proposal focuses on measures that significantly limit the possibility to access the asylum system of any other state than the Member States of arrival. The Commission proposal raises serious questions on the role of the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties in the process of the setting up of the CEAS. The proposal as a whole is fragmentary and is already containing a variety of measures which would further contribute to a dysfunction of the Dublin system. Additionally, the individual rights of asylum seekers would be significantly diminished if the recast proposal would be adopted in its current form.

Finally, neither the main practical questions (concerning transfers) nor the main legal questions are successfully addressed by the proposed changes.

In my view, the main legal problem of the responsibility allocation mechanism lies in the fact that it was created before common standards were defined and that there is no central authority that actually has unifying tendency for the practice (i.e. there is neither a first instance authority nor an appeal body on the European level). From a more systemic perspective, the huge divergences of the national asylum systems contributed to the difficulties in operating the system. The Dublin system is currently a system of national asylum systems and not a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). For various reasons that are ultimately dependent on national traditions and the related set-up of the administrative systems, these divergences will remain even if the established common standards for the CEAS that are based on the 1951 Refugee Convention and ECHR have led to a certain degree of harmonisation between the Member States.

In this context, the creation of a European Union Agency for Asylum would be a very important step for the system, although its creation seems currently completely unrealistic and illusory. Meanwhile, the difficult legal and practical questions of the Dublin system will remain a core feature of the debate on the CEAS in general. In this sense Dublin is very much alive.

 

On the frontline: the hotspot approach to managing migration

FULL STUDY FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LIBE  COMMITTEE AVAILABLE HERE

by Darren  NEVILLE, Sarah  SY, Amalia  RIGON

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The migration and refugee crisis has brought multiple challenges for the European Union’s migration, asylum and border management policy architecture. The sheer number of new arrivals, together with their concentration on certain migration routes (first into Italy and subsequently into Greece and then onwards along the Western Balkan route), have placed the EU and particularly frontline Member States under considerable strain. The crisis has thus exposed shortcomings both in EU policy and its implementation. And – as some Member States resort to national responses, such as internal border checks, and countries along the Western Balkan route effectively close their borders – more and more migrants and  refugees have found  themselves trapped in Greece,  sparking  a humanitarian  crisis.

The unprecedented migration flows have generated substantial policy and legislative activity centred around the European Commission’s May 2015 European Agenda on Migration. The Agenda sets out five priority actions to manage migratory flows, since backed up by a number of initiatives – for example to combat migrant smuggling and enhance border management – with further initiatives to overhaul the asylum system, to improve reception conditions and to bolster resettlement in the pipeline. The Agenda emphasises specifically the need to return those with no right to remain and to relocate some of those in clear need of international protection out of frontline Member States as part of a responsibility-sharing mechanism. Both on return and relocation, initiatives have followed. These include two decisions, adopted by the Council in September 2015, to provide for the relocation of 160,000 people in clear need of protection from Greece and Italy to other EU Member States. In particular the need to cooperate with third countries to bring order to migratory flows, stressed repeatedly by the European Council, led to the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016. The statement, which aimed to drive down the number of irregular and dangerous migrant crossings from Turkey to the Greek islands, established a mechanism governing the return of irregular migrants from Greece to Turkey and  the  resettlement of  Syrians from Turkey  to  the  EU.

As part of the immediate response to assist frontline Member States facing disproportionate migratory pressure, the Commission outlined a new hotspot approach to migration in its European Agenda on Migration. Located at key arrival points in frontline Member States, hotspots are designed to inject greater order into migration management by ensuring that all those arriving are identified, registered and properly processed. Hotspots thus link inextricably both to the relocation programme and to the aim of ensuring effective returns. Hotspots are based on the operational deployment of multiple EU agencies, notably Frontex, EASO and Europol, and are coordinated by a Regional Task Force in each Member State where hotspots are in operation – currently Italy and Greece. Rollout of the hotspots proved initially sluggish, due in part to the need to build them from scratch and to remedy infrastructure shortcomings, but has gathered pace significantly since early 2016. Four of the five planned hotspots in Greece are now operational as are four of the six planned in Italy. There seems to be consensus that hotspots have delivered greater order and substantially improved  registration  and  fingerprinting rates.

And yet criticism of the hotspots has been vehement in certain quarters. Critics point, for example, to a lack of clarity about what happens to those who do not qualify for relocation, but nonetheless wish to apply for international protection. The new mechanism agreed with Turkey has also prompted NGOs formerly providing essential services in the hotspot on Lesvos to pull out in protest at the conversion of the hotspot into a closed facility and at what they regard as a move to collective expulsions. Their withdrawal has reportedly led to a worsening of conditions in the hotspot centres. The Commission itself also acknowledges that the EU-Turkey Statement has shifted the focus in the Greek hotspots from identification  and  registration  to return.

Nevertheless, for all the difficulties to date, the hotspot approach remains fundamentally valid. By providing on-the-ground operational support from EU agencies, it can help to ensure that migration is effectively managed on the frontline. In order to meet this challenge, however, a number of policy recommendations might merit consideration by the European  Parliament:

On hotspots:

The European Parliament could consider the need to regulate hotspots through a stand-alone legal instrument, taking into account its interaction with other relevant instruments, such as the EU Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives. The loose policy framework surrounding hotspots may provide operational flexibility, but the absence of a stand-alone legal instrument may in turn lead to a lack of legal certainty. Regulating agencies’ roles in hotspots through separate legal instruments – such as a new European Border and Coast Guard Regulation – could undermine  the  multi-agency  foundation.

Members could call for a clearer role for individual agencies and clearer framework for their cooperation within hotspots. While both Frontex and EASO are heavily engaged in the hotspots, there is considerable disparity in terms of their respective staff deployment and budgetary resources. Europol’s on-the-ground deployment appears to be patchy, while the role of Eurojust seems even less well developed. The Fundamental Rights Agency is invited to provide input through existing cooperation agreements, though there  is no mainstreaming of its  role.

Mainstreaming fundamental rights in the hotspots. A clearly designated role for the FRA in the hotspot approach could help to address the obvious fundamental rights challenges in the pressurised environment of the hotspots. This is especially important given the need to protect the fundamental rights of vulnerable groups, such as women and children. Equally, while executive powers may rest with Member States, the enhanced operational support provided by EU agencies in hotspots calls for much clearer rules on the extent  to  which they  can be considered  liable and  accountable for their actions.

Members should insist that proper procedures for all protection seekers are guaranteed in hotspots as enshrined in the EU Asylum Procedures Directive. Swift processing of migrants and refugees within hotspots must not come at the expense of their rights and proper safeguards. Migrants must always be given the opportunity to apply for international protection and applications must be assessed on an individual, objective and impartial basis. Returns can only be carried out subject to a prior non-refoulement and proportionality     check.     Hotspots     cannot     provide     a    binary    choice    between     relocation     and return, but must have clear procedures for those wishing to apply for international protection, but  not qualifying  for  relocation.

Members should insist that efforts to register and identify all migrants arriving in the hotspots continue in order to enhance both relocation and return procedures and to improve overall security. In both Italy and Greece, registration and fingerprinting rates have improved considerably, reaching 100% in both countries. The Commission has also stated that the hotspot workflow and relocation process include systematic security checks. It is important to redouble efforts and ensure that everyone arriving is registered and  checked  against relevant  Interpol   and EU databases.

On  the Dublin  Regulation:

The European Parliament should, in its role as co-legislator, insist on a fundamental   change   to   the   Dublin   Regulation   and   a   binding   distribution   system.

The natural extension of the relocation policy and the deployment of EU agencies in hotspots would seem to be a fundamental overhaul of the Dublin Regulation with a binding system for distributing asylum seekers among the Member States, using a fair, compulsory allocation  key.

Any resumption of transfers to Greece under the existing Dublin Regulation should take into account that Greece still receives a large number of protection seekers on a daily basis. Regardless of the Commission’s proposed Dublin reform, plans to reinstitute Dublin transfers to Greece under the existing Dublin Regulation in June 2016 seem to contradict the idea of an emergency relocation mechanism to transfer those in need of international protection out of Greece. Resumption of Dublin transfers before pressure has been alleviated and adequate reception conditions are guaranteed appears premature.

On a possible new mandate  for EASO:

EASO should be given a stronger mandate and enhanced resources. In parallel with the creation of a European Border and Coast Guard with a reinforced mandate, the Parliament could support the Commission’s proposal to enhance EASO’s mandate in line with its operational role in hotspots and increase parliamentary oversight. If the agency is to play a new policy implementation role and a greater operational role, it will require sufficient  financial  resources  and  adequate legal  means.

On the EU-Turkey statement:

Members should call on the Commission to monitor carefully the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement. The Commission must be vigilant in monitoring implementation of the mechanism and respect for human rights, not least in light of the criticism from NGOs and other international organisations. Reports of illegal detention or deportation must be fully investigated. The Parliament should fulfil its role as co-legislator when  it  comes to  the visa liberalisation  process  and  budgetary  aspects.

TABLE OF CONTENT

  1. INTRODUCTION

2 THE POLICY FRAMEWORK SURROUNDING HOTSPOTS          
Relocation and resettlement programmes
Irregular migration and return
Improving  border management
Creating adequate reception capacity and conditions

  1. THE SITUATION IN GREECE

3.1.      Reception and asylum in Greece
Reception  capacity  in  Greece
Asylum applications in Greece
3.2.      The situation at the  Greek borders and the Schengen area
The situation  at  the Greece-FYROM border:  the  makeshift  camp  of Idomeni
Greece  and  the  Schengen area
Budgetary support to  Greece
The EU-Turkey statement – the consequences of the new mechanism
The  revised  Greek  law on  asylum
The  Greece-Turkey  Readmission Agreement
Initial  impact  on  migration  flows

  1. THE LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING HOTSPOTS

4.1.      Hotspots:  the policy framework
Coordination  of the  hotspot  approach
Tasks to  be  performed  in  the hotspots
Hotspots:  the legal framework
Hotspots:  outstanding policy  and legal questions
Ensuring  proper  procedures  for all   asylum  seekers
The absence of a  stand-alone legal  instrument
The  enduring  question of fundamental  rights liability
Mainstreaming  fundamental  rights in  the hotspots
The policy  focus  of  hotspots

  1. HOTSPOTS IN PRACTICE – GREECE AND ITALY

5.1.      Hotspots in Greece
Agency presence  in  Greek  hotspots
The legal  and  regulatory framework
The  EU-Turkey  statement:  a  shift in  focus  for  hotspots
Hotspots  in  Greece  –  a  brief assessment
5.2.      Hotspots in Italy
Agency presence  in  Italian  hotspots
The legal  and  regulatory framework
Hotspots  in  Italy – a  brief  assessment

  1. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT POSITION AND ACTIVITIES
  2. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

L’accord Union européenne avec la Turquie : l’heure de vérité ?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON CDRE SITE ON 28 AVRIL 2016. 

par Henri Labayle

L’indifférence relative avec laquelle l’opinion publique a accueilli l’annonce d’une nouvelle tragédie en Méditerranée ne doit pas tromper : celle-ci n’est vraisemblablement que l’un des épisodes d’une série à venir.

Ce silence contraste avec l’autosatisfaction bruyante avec laquelle l’Union et ses membres se sont félicités, au même moment, des premières applications de l’accord passé avec la Turquie concernant le renvoi des migrants arrivés en Grèce vers cet Etat tiers. Comme si le problème était en passe d’être réglé, comme si le sérieux des inquiétudes exposées ici s’était dissipé, au point de voir les autorités italiennes proposer de s’en inspirer avec les Etats du bassin méditerranéen pour leur proposer un « pacte migratoire » …

En fait, et au delà des polémiques relatives à la bonne volonté du « partenaire » turc, l’examen attentif de la première évaluation qui vient d’être proposée par la Commission (1) semble présager exactement du contraire (2).

1. Une mise en œuvre opérationnelle sujette à caution

L’accord passé le 20 mars 2016 entre la Turquie et l’Union européenne s’était fixé pour date de mise en œuvre le 4 avril 2016. A cet instant, les premiers retours de la Grèce vers la Turquie et les premières réinstallations vers l’Union européenne devaient avoir lieu. Après une présentation toute médiatique laissant croire aux opinions publiques que la solution était désormais acquise, la Commission s’est livrée à une évaluation plus technique, le 20 avril, dans une Communication relative aux progrès réalisés dans l’application de l’accord du 18 mars ((COM 2016 (231) .

L’exercice devrait se répéter avec une périodicité mensuelle. Cette volonté louable de transparence depuis l’été dernier illustre sans doute à la fois la volonté de la Commission de rendre compte de son action mais aussi de pointer publiquement les responsabilités en cause. Aucun doute n’est permis, elles sont celles des Etats membres.

L’accord du 18 mars, on le sait et au delà des controverses quant à son contenu, avait pour principal objectif du point de vue de l’Union de tarir le flux des migrants en provenance de Turquie et réduire à néant l’attractivité du commerce des trafiquants et autres passeurs. Il espérait y parvenir à la fois en ouvrant un canal légal entre la Grèce et la Turquie et en cordonnant le contrôle de la frontière commune. Pour contrepartie, il impliquait du point de vue turc à la fois un appui financier et administratif mais aussi une relance du processus d’adhésion, en particulier en matière de visas.

Le contrôle de la frontière commune implique d’abord une coopération accrue des forces en présence. De ce point de vue, l’action conjointe de Frontex, de l’OTAN et des autorités turques a, apparemment produit de l’effet puisque le chiffre des arrivées en Grèce serait passé de plus de 25 mille durant les trois semaines précédant l’accord à moins de 6000 depuis. Plus précisément, la Commission fait état du retour forcé de 325 migrants irréguliers n’ayant pas demandé l’asile, entrés après le 20 mars : 240 Pakistanais, 42 Afghans, 10 Iraniens, 7 Indiens, 5 Bangladais, 5 Irakiens, 5 Congolais, 4 Sri Lankais, 2 Syriens, 1 Somalien, 1 Ivorien, 1 Marocain, 1 Egyptien, 1 Palestinien. Ces retours ont été opérés sous l’égide de l‘accord de réadmission Grèce/Turquie, avant que, le 1er juin, l’accord de réadmission entre l’Union et la Turquie ne prenne le relai, après approbation du Parlement turc.

Sans doute faut-il y voir aussi les premiers fruits des échanges avec les autorités turques concernant la lutte contre les passeurs, via la présence d’agents de liaison à Europol et à Frontex, et de la stratégie de communication en direction des migrants tendant à contrebalancer le discours sécurisant des passeurs.

Il reste que le gigantesque effort sollicitant à la fois l’Union et ses agences mais aussi les Etats membres demeure encore très largement à produire, au plan matériel et financier comme au plan opérationnel. L’exposé financier des efforts attendus est en effet parfaitement clair, les mécanismes actuels d’aide d’urgence à la Grèce ou de financement des efforts de Frontex et du Bureau européen d’asile n’étant pas à la hauteur suffisante. Fait peu fréquent dans ce registre, la Commission n’hésite pas à épingler explicitement 12 Etats membres à la fin de sa communication pour n’avoir encore versé aucune contribution à ce jour (l’Autriche, la Belgique, Chypre, la Croatie, l’Espagne, la Lituanie, Malte, la Pologne, la Roumanie, la Slovénie). En revanche, 16 États membres de l’UE ont désormais envoyé leurs certificats de contribution, pour un montant de 1,61 milliard d’euros sur les 2 milliards promis pour 2016-2017

Du point de vue opérationnel, les choses ne sont guère plus encourageantes. Si autour du coordonnateur nommé par la Commission et le comité de pilotage qu’elle conduit avec la Grèce, les agences intéressées et un certain nombre d’Etats membres, la mécanique s’est mise en place, il n’en est pas forcément de même du soutien attendu des Etats membres.

La Commission se félicite de ce que Frontex ait déployé dans les îles grecques près de 318 agents d’escorte et 21 experts en réadmission à l’appui des opérations de retour et que 25 officiers de liaison turcs soient déployés dans les centres de crise grecs et 5 officiers de liaison grecs aux points d’arrivée en Turquie. De même, une petite centaine d’agents du Bureau européen d’asile sont à l’oeuvre, pour une cinquantaine d’entretiens quotidiens avec pour objectif d’en mener 200 à la mi-mai. Au vu de l’ampleur de la tâche et de son sérieux indispensable, les doutes sont donc permis. Car, à vouloir réserver aux Etats membres le fonctionnement des agences de l’Union, ces derniers sont pris à leur propre piège lorsque l’on évalue leur degré d’implication. La Communication de la Commission et ses annexes et autres « fact sheet » (méprisant comme à l’ordinaire la langue officielle de trois Etats fondateurs de l’Union) fournissent à cet égard des tableaux éloquents quant à l’effort réel des Etats à la fois au vu des demandes effectuées et des réponses Etat par Etat.

Attentes

Bilan avril

L’autre volet de la contribution des Etats membres tient dans la réalisation des engagements pris il y a plusieurs mois et demeurés largement lettre morte depuis juillet 2015, bafouant ouvertement les obligations juridiques contractées. L’accueil par les Etats membres conditionne en effet le jeu du principe « 1 + 1 ». Si la Commission présente un schéma décisionnel où la Turquie saisirait le HCR d’une liste de candidats à la réinstallation, pour évaluation et avant une décision finale des Etats membres concernés, la réalité des chiffres est toute autre.

A ce jour et sur la base de l’accord, 103 Syriens seulement ont gagné l’Allemagne, la Finlande, la Suède et les Pays Bas depuis la Turquie … Initialement, 22 500 places offertes à la réinstallation avaient été arrêtées en 2015, et 5677 ont été pourvues, principalement pour soulager les Etats voisins tels que la Jordanie et le Liban et grâce à l’appui des Etats associés à l’Union, comme en témoigne les tableaux fournis par la Commission. Il reste donc 16.800 places disponibles…

Réinstallation UE

Reisntallation associés

Afin de donner un minimum de crédibilité à l’accord passé avec la Turquie, la Commission a donc proposéd’ajouter à ces chiffres, les 54 000 places de relocalisation prévues initialement pour soulager l’Italie et la Grèce, en modifiant la décision 2015/1601 du 22 septembre 2015. Ce faisant, cette approche strictement comptable permettrait d’aboutir au chiffre total de 70 800 places à mettre dans la balance des relations avec la Turquie. Elle ne masque pas la démission des Etats comme en témoignent les chiffres que la Commission fournit elle même, bien volontiers.

Relocalisation Italie 11 avrilRelocalisation Grece

Dans ces conditions, les tensions entourant l’application de l’accord du 18 mars se comprennent aisément. Outre les difficultés pratiques extrêmement délicates à régler, les arrières plans politiques et juridiques ne sont pas réglés, bien au contraire.

2. Une mise en œuvre juridique sujette à critiques

Dès la conclusion de l’accord, l’interprète le plus qualifié qui soit en matière d’application de la Convention de Genève, le Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés avait émis expressément ses réserves. Celles-ci sont généralement partagées tant par la doctrine que par l’essentiel des ONG et d’une part de la classe politique. Fait peu habituel, l’Assemblée consultative du Conseil de l’Europe a même exprimé ses critiques dans une résolution, le 20 avril.

Elles tiennent en un doute principal, celui de la crédibilité du partenaire turc et de la fiabilité de ses pratiques. Comment un tel contributeur aux jurisprudence les plus sévères de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme pourrait-il inspirer la confiance, faisant preuve d’une constance remarquable de ce point de vue : il est à ce jour l’Etat partie à la CEDH ayant fourni le contingent le plus important d’arrêts à Strasbourg (17,13 %) et la pente sur laquelle s’engagent ses nouveaux dirigeants mène à penser que le pire est à venir … En d‘autres termes, comment imaginer qu’un Etat tiers réticent à reconnaître effectivement des garanties fondamentales à ses propres ressortissants pourrait assurer, a priori, la protection efficace de ressortissants de pays tiers ?

Seul, l’aveuglement insondable du Président du Conseil européen peut lui permettre d’afficher sans vergogne dans ses conditions sa « fierté » quant à un tel partenariat …

Le principe même d’un transfert systématique en direction de la Turquie demeure donc au cœur du débat, tel que le HCR lui même en avait exposé les termes immédiatement après l’accord avec l’Union. Le concept de pays tiers sûr est évidemment admis par le droit de l’Union, comme indiqué précédemment, mais il continue à poser concrètement la question de son application au cas d’espèce.

Afin de considérer que la Turquie émargeait à cette catégorie, il fallait, d’une part, remplir des conditions juridiques dans le pays de départ, la Grèce, et dans le pays de retour, la Turquie, et, d’autre part, que des garanties effectives soient apportées. Sous peine, comme le soulignait le HCR, de justifier une saisine de la Cour de justice à titre préjudiciel, argument qui a d’ailleurs trouvé un écho au Parlement européen.

Pour ce qui est de la mise à niveau juridique, des règles spécifiques devaient d’abord être introduites dans la législation grecque, notamment afin d’offrir un accès réel aux procédures et à un recours effectif aux personnes concernées. Il en allait de même en ce qui concerne la portée des engagements de la Turquie au regard de la Convention de Genève. La Grèce a ainsi adopté le 3 avril une loi lui permettant d’appliquer les concepts de pays tiers sûr et pays sûr de premier asile ainsi que d’assurer des procédures accélérées pour l’examen des demandes d’asile, en matière d’appel. Malgré l’optimisme affiché par la Commission dans son rapport d’évaluation évoqué précédemment, la création d’une vingtaine de « comités d’appel » demandera confirmation quant à son efficacité. Pour ce qui est de la Turquie et après quelques réticences, a été adoptée début avril la législation permettant d’accorder une protection temporaire aux ressortissants syriens « remis », conformément à la Convention de Genève. De même auraient été fournies les assurances nécessaires concernant les non-Syriens réadmis. En bref, la couverture juridique exigée par l’Union parce que légitimant l’accord semblait avoir été obtenue.

Au plan pratique, les choses se sont avérées beaucoup moins simples.

En Grèce d’abord, où se sont multipliées les accusations de déficiences à l’encontre de l’administration grecque. Avec tout de même et quelles que soient les positions des uns ou des autres, minimisant ou accentuant ces défaillances, une forte présomption de vraisemblance. Comment un Etat membre incapable depuis de nombreuses années d’accomplir ses obligations en matière de protection internationale, comme constaté à de multiples reprises par les juridictions européennes, au point de voir suspendre les transferts Dublin en sa direction, pourrait brusquement se transformer du tout au tout en quelques semaines ?

Au cœur du dispositif, la question de la rétention des demandeurs de protection et des conditions dans lesquelles celle-ci se déroule est incontestablement d’une gravité certaine. Non pas que la retenue des demandeurs de protection soit contraire à la législation de l’Union, ce qui n’est pas le cas, mais parce que les conditions matérielles et juridiques dans lesquelles ces privations de liberté sont réalisées posent manifestement problème, provoquant de ce fait la mise en retrait de nombre d’ONG. Le rapport de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe mérite à cet égard une citation intégrale : « la capacité prévue des trois plus grands centres d’accueil et d’enregistrement (Lesbos, Chios et Samos) a été très rapidement saturée. Ces centres sont devenus surpeuplés et les conditions de vie se sont détériorées: nourriture de mauvaise qualité, abris précaires, conditions d’hygiène déplorables, accès insuffisant à des soins médicaux appropriés ».

Pour ce qui est de la Turquie, la situation faite aux ressortissants non-syriens pose évidemment problème au regard du principe de non-discrimination et quoi que l’on en dise à Bruxelles. De l’Afghanistan à l’Erythrée, la misère humaine dépasse la situation particulière de l’exode syrien. Aussi, les « assurances » données à l’Union par la Turquie les concernant sont loin d’être suffisantes quant à leur accès à une procédure d’asile. D’autant que se multiplient les rapports alarmants relatif à la situation réelle des demandeurs de protection dans le pays ou quant au respect du principe de non-refoulement.

D’où l‘accentuation des pressions politiques et une multiplication des contacts directs avec la Turquie, le dernier en date prenant la forme d’une visite sur le terrain d’Angela Merkel et de Donald Tusk. Visite d’un village Potemkine ou tentative de forcer les blocages en cours, l’interprétation exacte de cette venue est délicate, destinée à légitimer l’action en cours autant qu’à établir un rapport de force avec l’opinion publique, l’initiative étant vertement critiquée dans la presse allemande la qualifiant de « farce« .

Car s’est ouvert entretemps un autre front, celui du lien effectué par les autorités turques entre la pérennité de l’accord avec l’Union et la libéralisation des visas à l’égard des ressortissants turcs.

On saura au mois de juin si cette « promesse faite au peuple turc », selon le premier ministre turc, peut ou non être honorée. En l’état, la Commission, avec cet optimisme qui la prive souvent de crédibilité, produira une évaluation le 4 mai, rapport sur la base duquel on saura si les 72 critères à remplir par la partie turque sont satisfaits ou non et si une proposition législative en bonne et due forme concrétise cette mise à niveau. A ce stade et selon les informations fournies par la Commission, il semblerait qu’une cinquantaine de ces critères soient effectivement acceptés, ce qui suppose néanmoins qu’en un mois un progrès conséquent doive encore être fait. Ce à quoi invite la Commission, par l’intermédiaire de son premier vice-président devant le Parlement européen.

Co-législateur, ce dernier pourrait donner davantage de fil à retordre qu’on ne le croit aux Etats membres, accusant d’ores et déjà ces derniers de sacrifier leur sécurité sur l’autel de la collaboration avec la Turquie et au détriment des demandeurs de protection. Une première salve a ainsi été tirée le 14 avril à propos du rapport 2015 consacré à la Turquie, dans une résolution dont les huit paragraphes consacrés à l’accord passé avec l’Union méritent le détour. D’où les rumeurs récentes quant à une initiative franco-allemande liant l’accord sur la libéralisation des visas à l’introduction d’un mécanisme de sauvegarde, type « emergency break », qui permettrait une suspension de cet accord en cas de tensions migratoires ou de problème sécuritaire. Au vu du climat de la réunion de la Commission Libé, le 21 avril, la partie est loin d’être gagnée …

Au total donc, les semaines à venir seront lourdes de conséquences.

Pour les réfugiés d’abord et avant tout, peu convaincus par la pseudo-voie d’accès légal qui leur est ainsi ouverte et qui laisse en suspens le sort de dizaines de milliers d’entre eux, n’entrant pas dans le champ d’application du texte. La proximité de l’été et l’ampleur de la reprise des traversées de la Méditerranée donneront très rapidement la réponse de l’efficacité de l’accord avec la Turquie.

Pour l’Union ensuite et sa pitoyable tentative de sous-traitance de ses valeurs et de ses obligations à un partenaire retors. De Charybde en Scylla, le prochain partenariat de ce genre impliquera-t-il la Libye ?

Pour les Etats membres de cette Union, enfin, que nul renoncement ne rebute, en Autriche ou ailleurs, et dont la solidarité ne se vérifie qu’à l’instant de renier le contrat sur laquelle leur Union s’était fondée.

La sécurité digitale à l’heure des crises migratoire et terroriste, le noeud gordien de l’interconnexion des fichiers

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON CDRE SITE (20 AVRIL 2016)

par Pierre Berthelet, CDRE

La situation que connaît actuellement l’Union européenne n’aura échappé à personne. Qu’il s’agisse de la crise migratoire ou de la crise terroriste générée par les attentats à répétition en 2015 et en 2016, le remède préconisé par les États membres par la voix du Conseil et du Conseil européen, consiste à vouloir sécuriser davantage les frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne.

La protection renforcée de celles-ci constitue l’enjeu majeur de la lutte menée contre le phénomène terroriste, dont l’agenda converge désormais clairement avec la politique européenne en matière migratoire, comme l’atteste la communication de la Commission du 6 avril 2016 intitulée « des systèmes d’information plus forts et plus intelligents pour les frontières et la sécurité ». Le texte affirme à cet égard très clairement une « interconnexion dynamique » entre police, migration et gestion des frontières.

La crainte actuelle est, en particulier, le phénomène des combattants de l’État islamique venant d’Irak et de Syrie. L’organe de coordination antiterroriste belge, l’OCAM, a d’ailleurs souligné, le 19 avril 2016, un risque considérable d’attentat de la part de ces combattants, des Européens partis faire le Jihad au Moyen-Orient et rentrant aguerris (phénomène dit des « returnees »).

Nouveaux défis, mais anciennes solutions donc. L’observateur ne peut qu’avoir une impression de déjà-vu : les choix de ces derniers mois formulés par les chefs d’État et de gouvernement, inspirant les orientations contenues dans cette communication, ressemblent, à bien des égards, à ceux des Conseils européens de Laeken de 2001, de Séville de 2002 ou encore de Thessalonique 2003. À l’époque, l’Union était déjà confrontée aux problématiques du terrorisme et d’échouage de migrants sur les côtes européennes. Les agendas antiterroriste et migratoire se mêlaient alors autour de la sécurisation des frontières extérieures pour éviter toute intrusion possible d’agents d’Al-Quaïda dans l’UE, dissimulés dans les colonnes de migrants, jetant ainsi les fondations du projet des frontières électroniques (smart borders).

Anciennes solutions, mais nouveaux défis néanmoins. La communication du 6 avril 2016, accompagnée d’une proposition de règlement instituant le « Système Entrée-Sortie » (correspondant à une révision du précédent projet présenté en 2013, jugé trop onéreux par les États membres), marque un nouvel épisode dans la création des frontières électroniques européennes. Elle s’inscrit dans le contexte d’enjeux très actuels : la protection des frontières extérieures au prisme de la lutte antiterroriste a trait à deux problèmes distincts, celui des « combattants étrangers » (1) et celui de la fraude documentaire (2).

Dans le premier cas, il s’agit de contrôler les flux de voyageurs sortants pour empêcher ces « combattants étrangers » (foreign fighters), c’est-à-dire les jeunes Européens désireux de partir faire le Jihad au Moyen-Orient. Dans le deuxième cas, il s’agit de contrôler les flux de population, pour la plupart fuyant la guerre dans cette région. En réalité, ces deux problématiques se recoupent car la fraude documentaire concerne le contrôle des titre de voyage dont sont porteurs les flux de voyageurs, y compris les migrants irréguliers rassemblés dans les hotspots. Elle a trait aussi à l’identification des « combattants étrangers » franchissant les frontières Schengen avec de faux papiers. Les solutions apportées concernent, dans un cas comme dans l’autre, un meilleur déploiement des fichiers et une plus grande interconnexion de ceux-ci (3).

Analyser la manière dont l’Union s’efforce de répondre à ces deux problématiques distinctes mais sécantes est instructif. Cette réponse s’exprime de façon commune, le recours à la sécurité digitale, c’est-à-dire l’utilisation accrue des systèmes d’information et de communication et ce, en écho au phénomène de digitalisation de la vie sociale observable dans d’autres secteurs à l’ère du Big Data, tels que la santé digitale. Les problématiques secondaires, fraude documentaire et combattants étrangers, se trouvent au cœur de la résolution des crises migratoire et terroriste, elles-mêmes étroitement imbriquées. Il s’opère à ce propos un phénomène d’intrication immigration-terrorisme dans un contexte où s’échafaudent des capacités de gestion de crise horizontale, c’est-à-dire de polycrises.

L’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information devient alors un enjeu central, crucial même, car de son succès dépend la protection effective de l’Union. La sécurité digitale, expression archétypale dusolutionnisme technologique, constitue un nœud gordien au sens où le sort de lutte antiterroriste dépend de la réussite de l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’informations, qu’ils soient à finalité sécuritaire ou migratoire, l’une et l’autre apparaissant désormais mêlées.

1. Verrouiller les frontières pour résoudre le problème des combattants étrangers 

Continue reading “La sécurité digitale à l’heure des crises migratoire et terroriste, le noeud gordien de l’interconnexion des fichiers”

“MIGRATION COMPACT”: Contribution to an EU strategy for external action on migration

 (ITALIAN NON-PAPER) : ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE 

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

The unprecedented phenomenon of growing migratory flows towards Europe is expected to last for decades due to various geopolitical dynamics in the neighbourhood and beyond (mainly Middle East and North Africa, Sahel, Horn of Africa): security challenges and regional instability, deterioration of economic and social environment, poverty and unemployment, climate change, etc. The migratory challenge is seriously jeopardising the fundamental pillars of European integration (e.g. integrity of the Schengen area) and solidarity among Member States.

The complexity of such a challenge is linked to the mixed nature of the flows (both refugees and economic migrants). Actions taken in the Eastern route have to deal with mixed flows with a greater component of refugees due to the civil war in Syria. Flows through the Central/Western Mediterranean route are composed mainly by economic migrants and are expected to last in the medium-long term. The EU should be ready to cope with both challenges (the second is expected to last for decades) as well as with the opening of other possible routes (eg. north-east).

At the same time, if well managed, migration may represent an opportunity both for the EU and partner countries, in terms of economic growth and development, and for an ageing Europe in terms of sustainability of social security systems.

  1. LESSONS LEARNED

Most recently a number of initiatives and legislative proposals have been discussed at EU level to address the challenge, mainly focusing on the EU internal dimension, such as: the establishment of the European Border Guard; the reform of the Common European Asylum System which should feed into ambitious legislative proposals; the Decisions on relocation adopted in 2015; the intention of the Commission to not take into account the costs for the management of the current crisis under the Stability and Growth Pact; the Communication “Back to Schengen” and the recent proposals on “Smart Borders”.

However such measures only constitute components, even though important ones, of the more comprehensive response needed which so far does not yet directly address the external dimension of our migration policy. In order to be effective such internal measures need to be complemented with a stronger joint external action. The outburst of the migratory crisis highlighted the need to overcome fragmentation of available EU external action tools and to upgrade the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, revise the EU-ACP partnership, and further develop the pathways offered by the Valletta Action Plan, by the EU-Turkey agreement and by the existing Dialogues the EU is promoting at regional level (such as the Khartoum and Rabat Processes).

In order to design a reinforced external action strategy on migration it is urgent to carry out a comprehensive analysis of all existing instruments and actions with the aim to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the existing framework and consequently reorient the EU programming and planning.

The recent EU/Turkey agreement represents the first attempt to initiate a large-scale cooperation with a third country and has shown that it is possible to use existing tools and budget in an innovative way.

All existing initiatives and instruments in the field of external action should be directed (in a coherent way with the internal ones) to developing an active strategy, focussing first and foremost on African countries of origin and transit.

  1. THE WAY FORWARD: “THE FAIR GRAND BARGAIN”

The first step of the strategy should concern the identification of key partner countries to cooperate with on migratory issues and the definition of the kind of cooperation to develop with each of them. A matrix should be defined, on the basis of different migratory features of each country (origin, transit, origin and transit) and be adapted according to the characteristics of the country (e.g: economic and social trends, security, climate change, etc.). The Country Fiches prepared by the Commission and the EEAS are a good starting point and an example of interinstitutional cooperation which is much needed to improve our approach. Such a mapping should be accompanied by a thorough needs assessment to be carried out together with the third country, in a genuine spirit of co-ownership, and should become the basis for Country Specific Action Plans for an enhanced Partnership.

The EU should upgrade its commitment on priorities identified by the third country, while the latter should upgrade its commitment on priorities identified by the EU.

3.1 The EU may offer:

* Investment Projects with a high social and infrastructural impact to be identified together with the partner country as a crucial incentive for enhancing cooperation with the EU. To that end, programming of external action financial instruments (EDF, DCI, ENI, etc…) should be reoriented and a new EU Fund for Investments in third countries should be established.

* “EU-Africa bonds” to facilitate the access of African countries to capital markets (with a medium-to-long-term perspective in order to ensure capital availability for growth and sustainable prosperity schemes), as well as other innovative financing initiatives (facilitating remittances and their re-investment and blending mechanisms, etc.), in synergy with the EIB1 and other European and international financial organizations.

* Cooperation on security: mainstreaming migration (border management/control, customs, criminal justice, management of migrants and refugees in line with international standards) in the mandate of existing and future CSDP missions in Africa (Sahel; a reflection could also be conducted for the Horn of Africa). The logical next step in this process would be a regional grouping of missions to better manage a phenomenon that, by definition, has a “cross-border” dimension. Support should also be ensured to existing regional processes aimed at regional cooperation in security and migration domain (e.g. the G5 Sahel). This approach should go alongside the practical implementation of the Capacity Building for Security and Development concept (“CBSD”), coupling training with adequate equipment.

* Legal migration opportunities, building upon the pillars set out at the Tampere European Council in 1999, as an incentive that could include: entry quotas for workers, information on job opportunities in Europe for third countries nationals, pre-departure measures (including language and vocational training) in collaboration with European companies ready to employ manpower from third countries, matching of demand and supply of jobs, professional and social integration in the host Member States, Erasmus Plus programmes for students and researchers. Initiatives on circular migration as well as south-to-south migration opportunities should be further explored.

* Resettlement schemes as compensation for the burden on those countries that engage in establishing national asylum systems in line with international standards.

3.2 The EU may ask:

* Commitment on effective Border Control and reduction of flows towards Europe. The EU should help with “capacity building” initiatives and supply of equipment and technologies. Third countries should also engage in Search and Rescue activities. The European Border Guard, within its new mandate, has to step up the cooperation with third countries and have a coordinating role.

* Cooperation on returns/readmissions, focusing on operational agreements, reciprocal posting of liaison officers in third countries and Member States to speed up identification and issuing of travel documents. The EU should fund these secondments as well as reintegration programmes for returnees. The third country should accept repatriations also via charter flights organized by individual Member States or by the European Border Guard. The EU should provide assistance in the development of biometric databases and IT systems for civil registers. Development of readmission cooperation among third countries should be supported by the EU. The EU should promote a coherent revision of the EU-ACP partnership (post-Cotonou) in line with EU priorities on migration, including the full implementation of obligations under art. 13.5 of the Cotonou agreement.

* Management of migration and refugee flows: third countries should be supported in establishing a system of reception and management of migratory flows (including infrastructures and logistics), which should foresee careful on-site screening of refugees and economic migrants, coupled with resettlement measures to Europe for those in need of international protection and returns for irregular migrants.

* Establishment of asylum systems: the EU should support third countries in establishing national systems, in line with international standards, which offer on-site protection (“safe harbours”) to those in need. The experience of relevant international organizations such as UNHCR and IOM could be used to help third countries to establish reception centres for refugees, financed by the EU.

* To strengthen the fight against trafficking in human beings and smuggling of migrants also through joint police and judicial cooperation.

To implement this approach, the new European Border Guard (in particular the new Office for Returns) should develop a plan (already before the entry into force of the Regulation) for joint EU return operations to be financed with the EU budget and for supporting return operations from third countries of transit to countries of origin (where cooperation on readmission is in place). The possibility for Member States having privileged relations with specific third countries to lead and organize (with the support of the Agency) joint return operations should be explored. The EU should use in an effective way its network of Delegations, the new Border Guard and all Common Security Defense Policy instruments. This effort could be complemented by contributions from Member States.

All EU and MS existing security, foreign and development policy instruments should be strategically combined to maintain a constant European law enforcement presence in the Saharan belt with the objective of formally training, equipping, assisting and cooperating on security with countries in the region (border control, joint patrolling, irregular migration and trafficking, terrorism, drugs, organised crime, etc.), while informally improving our early warning and prevention mechanisms.

3.3 The “Migration Compact” approach should be financed through:

  • Reorienting of programming of external action financial instruments (EDF, DCI, ENI, etc…).
  • A new   financial   “Instrument   for   the   external   action   in   the   field   of   migration” (IEAM)2 to be established within the EU budget and operate in synergy with AMIF and ISF. In the meantime, the EU should increase resources available under the Emergency Africa Trust Fund in support of a EU-Africa Program for prosperity, security and migration, building on the Valletta Action Plan and make use of regional migration dialogues (such as the Khartoum and Rabat Processes) to ensure African ownership.
  • “Common EU Migration Bonds” to be issued to fund the migration management in Member States and to finance the “Migration Compact” goals.
  • A new EU Fund for Investments in third countries to finance sustainable investments in the region and attract European investors, including through blending structures and operations by the Commission and the EIB.

LIBYA

In this context, the stabilization of major transit countries, such as Libya, is a strategic priority of the first order also to cope with migration and refugee flows. At the EU level, we will need to step up our partnership with the Libyan government, while engaging in targeted capacity-building programs aimed at bolstering the Government’s control over its territory and law-enforcement capacity.

The EU should ensure the best possible use of EUNAVFOR MED Sophia and its capacity in contributing to the disruption of the business model of human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Central Mediterranean, thus contributing to Libyan and regional security. When the necessary conditions will be met, different possible options and tasks can be included in the Operation’s mandate, moving it to new phases and tasks, including the training of the Libyan Coastguard.

In addition the EU should offer Libya security sector support, including advice and capacity building in the fields of police and criminal justice, through a civilian CSDP mission, focusing as well on border management and assisting Libyan authorities in their efforts to fight terrorism and improve management of migration flows.

To this end, UN and EU efforts should aim at supporting the management in Libyan territory of migratory flows, also through careful screening of refugees and economic migrants, coupled with resettlement measures for those in need of international protection and return for irregular migrants.

NOTES

  1. See European Council Conclusions, 17-18 March 2016, doc. 12/1/16.
  2. IEAM should cover potentially all geographic areas and could be used also for mobilising additional funding for the Facility for Refugees in Turkey.

(Legislative Alert) : The Council “general approach” on the future EU Border Agency.

NOTA BENE : Following intense negotiations inside the working groups of the Council (see some preparatory works on Statewatch and soon on a WIKI-LEX page of this site) the Coreper has agreed Yesterday (April 7) on a mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament, as set out in the text below.
Even if the Treaty requires that debates and votes on legislative proposals should be public (also in the Council) in the case of the so called “early agreements” and “trilogues”   everything is still blurred. In this parallel world “informally” created by the co-legislators it is not clear the nature of the preparatory votes in the Council/Coreper  (qualified majority ? unanimity ?) , nor the role of the Commission, nor the impact on the original legislative proposal.
These legal procedural niceties taken apart (!?)  in the text of the mandate below the envisaged changes vis-à-vis the Commission proposal are highlighted in underline and strikethrough.  It should be noted that an additional legal basis, i.e. point (e) of Article 77(2) TFEU has been considered necessary,  in order to cover the provision of draft Article 18(8) which deals with issues related to controls at the internal borders.
Chapter I of the proposal (Article 2) deals with the definitions of the concepts used in it. Among them, the definitions of “external borders” and of “hotspot areas” should be highlighted.
Chapter II, Section 1 (Articles 6-7), concerns the name and the tasks of the new Agency. 

Chapter III, Sections 3-5 (Articles 50-78), deals with the cooperation between the future Agency and different stake holders (including with third countries), the general framework and organisation of the Agency and the financial requirements for its proper functioning.
Among the important issues tackled in these provisions, emphasis should be given in particular, on:
i) the envisaged facilitation of cooperation by the Agency with the Member States and the Commission in specific activities related to the Customs Area (Article 51);
ii) with regard to the cooperation with third countries, the Council has taken on board the view expressed by a number of delegations according to which the participation of Member States in joint operations on the territory of third countries shall be only on a voluntary basis. The joint operation in question shall be carried out on the basis of an operational plan agreed also by the Member State bordering the relevant operational area. In the same context, the compromise envisaged by the Council includes a provision on the Status Agreement that should be concluded by the EU and the third country for the deployment of the members of the teams in appropriate situations (Article 53);
iii) more functions have been added in the remit of the Management Board so as to meet with the role that is envisaged for it;
iv) the deletion of the provision on Supervisory Board, following a consistent request by many delegations (Article 69).
Finally, Chapter IV (Articles 79-82) covers the final provisions.

A detailed comment of this proposal which can be considered the first case of a quasi – federal Agency will follow.
EDC

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004, Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC Continue reading “(Legislative Alert) : The Council “general approach” on the future EU Border Agency.”

(ASGI and OTHERS) THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL AND TURKEY OF 17/18 MARCH 2016 IS ILLEGAL.

NB. The original is available in the site of the Associazione di Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) Unofficial translation by Statewatch

 

It seriously violates European law and radically betrays the EU’s and Italy’s judicial culture.

The agreement of 17/18 March 2016 is a decision by the heads of state and of the governments of the EU which runs contrary to the European law that is in force. The violations which have been recorded are numerous, including the following:

  1. The agreement envisages the forced return to Turkey of asylum seekers who entered Greek territory passing through Turkish territory after their asylum application was declared inadmissible. According to what the European Council reported, such inadmissibility will be declared by the Greek authorities, in cooperation with UNHCR, following an examination which is defined as individual but is described in terms which apply to collective refoulements. Art. 33 of EU Directive 32/2013 (on common procedures) establishes that asylum applications can only be deemed inadmissible following an individual assessment which may lead, in such cases, to establishing that an asylum seeker may be readmitted into a third country which may be deemed a “first country of asylum” or “safe third country”. These two notions are specified better in arts. 35 and 38 of the same directive, and are subject to compliance with requisites which cannot be observed as applying to the case of Turkey in any way. In fact, the latter country, apart from violating human rights and not guaranteeing democratic principles to its citizens, does not offer “sufficient protection” to asylum seekers for it to be defined a first country of asylum (art. 35), nor does it offer “the possibility to apply for refugee status” or to “obtain protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention” to an extent that may allow it to be deemed a safe third country (art. 38). In other terms, the agreement wants to break through the current normative framework (Directive 32/2013) to qualify Turkey as a “first country of asylum” or “safe third country”, in order to trigger a system of absolutely summary evaluation of asylum applications which will lead to quick declarations of inadmissibility and, as a result, to forced deportations on the basis of the sole precondition that such asylum seekers have passed through Turkey and that, just for this reason, they may be sent back to that country.
  2. The agreement envisages the possibility of enacting forced returns towards Turkey of all the foreign citizens who have reached Greece after crossing Turkish territory without submitting an asylum application. In this case as well, the agreement defines as individual a mechanism which, conversely, is described as a collective refoulement, enacted en masse against all the foreign citizens who have not submitted an application (or who are unlikely to manage to express their will to do so), solely on the basis of the fact that they have crossed the Turkish border. Hence, this is a mechanism which openly contravenes the prohibition of collective refoulements which is enshrined by 4 of the 4th Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
  1. Finally, the agreement which has just been reached represents a decision by the heads of states and of governments, and not an authentic EU agreement. Thus, it requires ratification by the Italian Parliament if it is to be deemed binding for Italy.

In view of its illegal aspects highlighted above, the signatory associations (*) demand:

I. That the authorities of the European Union immediately reassess the terms of the agreement and thereby exclude the possibility that Turkey may be considered a “first country of asylum” or a “safe third country” in accordance with arts. 35 and 38 of EU Directive 32/2013. Further, we ASK that, in any case, they respect the individual nature of the examination of an asylum application, allowing asylum seekers the concrete chance to have effective access to the procedure for recognition of international protection and to express any reason they may have to exercise a genuine right to legal defence.

II. That UNHCR should not participate in operations of mass evaluation of the inadmissibility of requests for international protection submitted in Greece by applicants who have arrived from Turkey. Such an assessment concerning inadmissibility represents a waiting room for collective refoulements and UNHCR cannot and must not legitimate such an operation.

III. That the Italian Parliament subject the decision by heads of states and of governments to ratification and not to authorise it because it contravenes European law, the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, article 10.3 of the Italian Constitution and, more generally, the fundamental principles of our legal civility and our democratic tradition.

22 March 2016

(*) Arci, Asgi, Federazione delle Chiese Evangeliche in Italia, Centro Astalli, FOCUS -Casa dei Diritti Sociali, Medici per i Diritti Umani, Consiglio Italiano per i rifugiati (CIR), SenzaConfine