Author Archives: Niels Frenzen

Niels Frenzen's avatar

About Niels Frenzen

Clinical Professor of Law, Gould School of Law, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. Contact: frenzen@usc.edu; @migrantsatsea
by | 02 Feb 2011 · 05:48

WikiLeaks 2009 US Cable: UN Official says Libya, Italy shirking HR responsibilities

Several US State Department cables discussing Libya, Italy, Malta, and the EU have been released over the past several days by WikiLeaks.  I will post several of the memos over the next day or so.

Among the cables released by WikiLeaks on 31 January 2011, is a Cable written in August 2009 by Gene Cretz, US Ambassador to Libya.  The cable is headed: “UN OFFICIAL SAYS LIBYA, ITALY SHIRKING HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES.” Excerpts from the cable:

“In a July 28 [2009] meeting with Pol/Econ chief and Poloff, UNHCR Chief of Mission Mohammed al-Wash complained that Italy was breaking its commitments to support UN and EU charters on human rights by returning asylum seekers to Libya with other economic migrants, and strongly denounced the Italian Coast Guard’s tactics while forcing migrants to return. He cited the example of the return of 80 migrants — including several refugees registered with UNHCR in Tripoli, Addis Ababa, and Cairo — interdicted by Italy on or around July 1 who later related their story to UNHCR staff. When the vessel carrying the migrants was stopped, three Eritrean representatives reportedly asked to speak with the Italian ship’s commander to inform him of their refugee status. Several on the boat produced their UNHCR attestations for the commander. Replying that he was under strict orders from his government to return migrants to Libya, the Italian commander reportedly ordered that all migrants – including those registered with UNHCR — be removed from their vessel for transport to Libya. Some of the migrants refused, leading to physical altercations between the migrants and the Italian crew that ended with the Italians beating some Africans with plastic and metal batons, leaving at least six injured. Migrants on the boat reportedly filmed the incident with their mobile phones, leading the Italian crew to confiscate phones, documents, and personal belongings that have not yet been returned….”

“Al-Wash alleged that the Italian government was intentionally stonewalling the UN. According to al-Wash, Italian Ambassador Francesco Trupiano refuses to meet with UNHCR and told al-Wash that he was a “troublemaker.” Al-Wash believed that that Trupiano was single-mindedly focused on returning migrants to Libya and claimed to be unaware that Rome had agreed in principle to accept 63 refugees for resettlement from Libya. UNHCR has also submitted to the GOI a list of 93 refugees that have been returned since Italy and Libya began joint patrols in May. According to al-Wash, Rome agreed to accept “20 or 30″ of the 93 refugees, provided EU states committed to a burden-sharing agreement, though states did not seem eager to undertake one. Al-Wash was hopeful the EC would intercede to bring Italy in line, citing the EC’s inclusion of Libya signing an MOU with UNHCR as part of its requirements for a Framework Agreement (ref A) and a recent letter from the Commission to the Italian Interior Ministry, reminding it of its obligations under the EU’s Human Rights Charter….”

“Al-Wash alleged that the Italian government was intentionally stonewalling the UN. According to al-Wash, Italian Ambassador Francesco Trupiano refuses to meet with UNHCR and told al-Wash that he was a “troublemaker.” Al-Wash believed that that Trupiano was single-mindedly focused on returning migrants to Libya and claimed to be unaware that Rome had agreed in principle to accept 63 refugees for resettlement from Libya. UNHCR has also submitted to the GOI a list of 93 refugees that have been returned since Italy and Libya began joint patrols in May. According to al-Wash, Rome agreed to accept “20 or 30″ of the 93 refugees, provided EU states committed to a burden-sharing agreement, though states did not seem eager to undertake one. Al-Wash was hopeful the EC would intercede to bring Italy in line, citing the EC’s inclusion of Libya signing an MOU with UNHCR as part of its requirements for a Framework Agreement (ref A) and a recent letter from the Commission to the Italian Interior Ministry, reminding it of its obligations under the EU’s Human Rights Charter.”

Click here or here for the full memo.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 28 Jan 2011 · 02:00

Goodwin-Gill Lecture: “Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement” (16 Feb., Brussels)

Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill will give the Chaire W.J. Ganshof Van Der Meersch lecture in Brussels, 16 February 2011, 17:00, at the Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, salle Albert II.

The lecture will address “The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement ” – The right to seek asylum is continuously challenged by the fight against irregular migration. In particular, the European Union and its Member States take measures to intercept boats on the sea in order to prevent irregular migration: patrols at sea, treaties with countries of origin or transit to readmit the concerned persons, agreements regarding the place of disembarkation,… The problem comes from the fact that asylum seekers are traveling together with undocumented migrants, what is called “mixed flows”. Even if the applicability of the principle of non-refoulement is often reaffirmed, the way to implement it represents a real difficulty in such a context.”

RSVP by 11 Feb.:

Votre réponse est attendue au plus tard le 11 février 2011

Tél: +32(0)2 650 27 16 (9h00 à 12h00)

Fax : +32(0)2 650 39 57

Courriel : fwa@ulb.ac.be

Click here for more information.

1 Comment

Filed under Belgium, Colloques / Conferences, European Union, News

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 26 Jan 2011 · 06:55

EP Adopts Recommendation to Council on EU-Libya Framework Agreement

On 20 January 2011 the European Parliament adopted a slightly watered down recommendation to the Council regarding the negotiations on the EU-Libya Framework Agreement.  The adopted text is similar in most, but not all respects to the Draft Proposal prepared 23 November 2010 by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Rapporteur MEP Ana Gomes.  One substantive difference between the draft proposal and the final adopted text is a weakening of the language addressing the negotiation of the readmission agreement with Libya.  The final adopted text is also critical of the secrecy of the Council/Commission negotiations with Libya.

The Draft Proposal prepared by MEP Ana Gomes in Nov. 2010 called for an end to negotiations on the readmission agreement with Libya given the poor human rights conditions in Libya.  (Click here (pdf) or here for ECRE interview with MEP Gomes.)  The final text eliminated the call for an end to negotiations on readmission and replaced the language with a call for the respect of the rights of persons subjected to a future readmission agreement.

The Draft Proposal’s language stated:

“(d)  [the Council is urged] to cease pursuing a readmission agreement with Libya, as sending individuals back to a country with a record of continuous human rights violations and the use of the death penalty would be in breach of EU legal obligations;”

The final adopted text now states:

“(d)  [the Council and the Commission are reminded] of their obligations to ensure full compliance of the EU’s external policy with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly its Article 19, which prohibits collective expulsion and grants the principle of ‘non-refoulement’;

[***]

(f)  [the Council and the Commission are urged] to ensure that a readmission agreement with Libya could only be envisaged for irregular immigrants, excluding therefore those who declare themselves asylum-seekers, refugees or persons in need of protection, and reiterates that the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ applies to any persons who are at risk of the death penalty, inhumane treatment or torture;”

The final adopted text is critical of the secrecy surrounding the Commission’s negotiations with Libya:

“(a) [The Parliament] [n]otes the recent Council decision to finally allow a limited number of Members of Parliament to read the mandate given to the Commission to negotiate a Framework Agreement between the EU and Libya; regrets however the delay in this decision and calls for the EP to be granted access to the mandates of all international agreements under negotiation, in accordance with Article 218(10) TFEU, which states that Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure;”

The final text urges the Council and Commission to take steps to encourage Libya to ratify and implement various international agreements and to allow the UNHCR to work within the country.  For example, the Council and Commission are urged-

  • “to strongly recommend that Libya ratify and implement the Geneva Convention on Refugees of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol, including full cooperation with UNHCR so as to guarantee adequate protection and rights for migrants, and adopt asylum legislation that recognises refugees‘ status and rights accordingly, notably the prohibition of collective expulsion and the principle of ’non-refoulement‘;”
  • “to request that the Libyan authorities sign a Memorandum of Understanding granting UNHCR a legal presence in the country, with a mandate to exercise its full range of access and protection activities;”
  • “to encourage Libya to fully respect its pledges given when acceding to the UNHRC and thus urges Libya to issue standing invitations to those appointed under UN special procedures such as the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances and the Working Group on arbitrary detentions, as requested in the recent Universal Periodic Review on Libya; calls in the same spirit for unfettered access to the country for independent scrutiny of the overall human rights situation;”

Click here for final adopted text.

Click here for draft proposal.

Click here for link to EP’s Procedure File – Negotiations on EU-Libya Framework Agreement.

Click here (pdf) or here for ECRE interview with MEP Ana Gomes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Libya, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 23 Jan 2011 · 06:07

Frontex Signs Cooperation Agreement with Cape Verde

2006 BBC Map of Frontex Deployment

Frontex and Cape Verde signed a “Working Arrangement” on 14 January.  According to the Frontex press release, “the arrangement aims at promoting the development of broad cooperation on operational and technical border security/management matters between the Agency and the competent authorities of Cape Verde, with a view to working toward sustainable partnership. The intended cooperation in areas related to border security and management include exchange of best practices and strategic information, training, capacity-building and collaboration on relevant technologies as well as participation in joint operations. Information sharing regarding people-smuggling and trafficking in human beings is also foreseen as part of the arrangement.”

Frontex has coordinated operations with Cape Verde for many years pursuant to the provisions of bi-lateral agreements between Spain and Cape Verde.  In a September 2010 interview with EurAsylum, Frontex Director Laitinen said:  “In West Africa, Senegal, Mauritania and Cape Verde have all been integrated into Frontex operations for many years with good results, always demonstrating a willingness and capacity to work for the same aims and goals as their European colleagues. Although we do not have formal working arrangements in place yet with these countries, we are able to work together on the basis of their existing bi-lateral provisions with Spain. This cooperation has had measurable results in reducing people smuggling via the Canary Islands and in preventing the loss of human lives at sea.”

Click here for Frontex Press Release.

1 Comment

Filed under Eastern Atlantic, Frontex, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 21 Jan 2011 · 20:27

PACE President Çavusoglu: ECtHR Decision “explodes myth that Europe is able to protect the rights of refugees”

PACE President Mevlüt Çavusoglu issued a statement regarding today’s Grand Chamber decision in the CASE OF M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE (Application no. 30696/09) (also FR):

“‘The European Court of Human Rights today delivered a milestone judgment damning how Europe is protecting its refugees, asylum seekers and irregular migrants,’ today said Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) President Mevlüt Çavusoglu.

‘While the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment is only against two member states, the implications of the judgment will be rippling through the capitals of Europe,’ he added. ‘The myth that European Union member states are safe places to return asylum seekers has been exploded by the European Court of Human Rights.’

The President stated that the Court had found massive deficiencies in detention conditions in Greece and in the procedures and remedies designed to safeguard the rights of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants in Europe. He commented that Greece was not alone in failing on detention safeguards and that the Assembly had recently addressed recommendations to all member states on steps to improve detention facilities in Europe.

‘What is also clear from this judgment is that the so-called EU ‘Dublin system’ for determining the state responsible for deciding an asylum decision has to be changed as a matter of urgency. It is based on the false premise that EU member states are all safe and able to cope. They are not, and the ‘Dublin system’ creates enormous burdens on front-line states, such as Greece,’ the President declared.

He called on the EU to work with the Council of Europe, UNHCR and others, to solve the problem of returns under the “Dublin system” and reiterated a concern repeatedly highlighted by the Assembly that Europe needs to make its asylum systems fairer (see PACE Resolution 1695 (2009)) and needs clear rules on detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers (see PACE Resolution 1707 (2010)).

‘Europe has European Prison Rules applying to criminals, but we still do not have similar rules for irregular migrants and asylum seekers who have committed no crime,’ he concluded.”

2 Comments

Filed under Belgium, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, European Union, Greece, News, Statements

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 21 Jan 2011 · 17:05

Decision from Grand Chamber of ECtHR: Returning Asylum Seekers to Greece Violates European Conv. on Human Rights

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision today in the CASE OF M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE (Application no. 30696/09) (also FR) and concluded that Belgium should not have returned an Afghan asylum seeker to Greece under the Dublin II regulation which mandates that asylum claims are to be considered in the state where the asylum seeker first entered Europe.

This is the first decision from the ECtHR addressing the application of the Dublin II regulation.  According to European Voice, the “Court [currently] has around 960 cases pending that relate to the Dublin regulation, against the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, the United Kingdom and France, most of them concerning expulsions to Greece.”

I have not had a chance to read the decision closely yet, but here is some basic information about today’s decision (more to follow in a subsequent post):

Excerpts from the Court’s Press Release (click here for FR):

“In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09), which is final, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:

A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights by Greece both because of the applicant’s detention conditions and because of his living conditions in Greece;

A violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 3 by Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case;

A violation of Article 3 by Belgium both because of having exposed the applicant to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Greece and because of having exposed him to detention and living conditions in Greece that were in breach of Article 3;

A violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3 by Belgium because of the lack of an effective remedy against the applicant’s expulsion order.”

ECRE released a statement describing the decision as a “major blow to the Dublin system.”  Excerpts from the ECRE statement:

“Bjarte Vandvik, ECRE Secretary General, stated: ‘This judgment is a major blow to the Dublin system. The assumption that all EU Member States respect fundamental rights and that it is therefore safe to automatically transfer asylum seekers between EU countries no longer stands. Europe must seriously rethink the Dublin system and replace it with a regime that ensures the rights of asylum seekers are respected’.

This judgment will affect many asylum seekers in Europe. In 2010 alone, EU countries requested Greece to examine the applications of almost 7,000 asylum seekers who had entered the EU through Greece. Their situation will now need to be re-examined in light of this ruling.

Bjarte Vandvik [also] stated: ‘European countries must comply with the Court’s ruling, stop sending asylum seekers back to Greece, and examine asylum applications themselves until a fair asylum system is in place in Greece’.

The Dublin system fails refugees and Member States and needs to be changed.  This ruling reflects the serious shortcomings in the asylum procedure in Greece and in Belgium and it also highlights the flaws in the Dublin system itself. ECRE has long stressed that Dublin shifts responsibility for asylum seekers to states at Europe’s frontiers. Also, it allows refugees to be sent back to European countries where their fundamental rights are not respected.

As a first step in the right direction, ECRE supports the Commission proposal to review the Dublin Regulation, as it introduces significant humanitarian reforms and important procedural safeguards. For example, the proposal makes it easier for asylum seekers to join family members living in Europe, protects the rights of children who have arrived alone and ensures the continuity of care for vulnerable persons.

However, these are only temporary measures that do not solve the sometimes devastating impact of the Dublin system on asylum seeker’s human rights. Ultimately the Dublin Regulation should be abolished and replaced by a more humane and equitable system that considers the connections between individual asylum seekers and particular Member States.”

Click here for full ECRE Statement on the decision.

Click here (ECHR Blog) and here (Free Movement Blog) for some initial additional thoughts about the decision.

Click here, here, and here for articles.

3 Comments

Filed under Belgium, Commissioner for Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Judicial, News

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 18 Jan 2011 · 06:49

Greece May Use Dutch “Ships” to Detain Migrants

Following its announcement that it was considering building a wall along portions of its land border with Turkey, Greek officials announced earlier this month that they are considering the acquisition of two floating migrant detention centres from the Netherlands.  The two vessels would be leased and would have the capacity to hold approximately 1000 persons.  Greece reportedly was considering using passenger ships to detain migrants, but decided that floating detention centres used by Dutch authorities in Rotterdam are a better option.  The floating detention centres would be used in conjunction with prefabricated detention facilities that are being constructed on land to detain the large numbers of migrants being detained by Greek and Frontex authorities along the Greek-Turkish land border.

Click here and here for articles. (EL)  (Read with Google translate)

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Netherlands, News, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 18 Jan 2011 · 06:27

New Blog to Follow EASO

Earlier this month, Dr. Neil Falzon launched a new blog, the EASO Monitor, which will be focused on the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).   Falzon is based in Malta and lectures International Human Rights Law at the Faculty of Laws and EU Migration and Asylum Law at the European Documentation and Research Centre at the University of Malta. 

(I have been off line for more than a month and am just getting back to work now that a new semester has begun here in all too warm Los Angeles.  A belated Happy 2011 to all.  -nwf)

2 Comments

Filed under European Union, Malta, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 29 Nov 2010 · 06:42

Rob Visser Selected as 1st European Asylum Support Office Director

The EASO management board held its first formal meeting on 26 November and selected Mr Rob K Visser as EASO’s first executive Director.  Mr Visser is currently the Director General for International Affairs and Immigration of the Dutch Ministry of Justice (directeur-generaal Internationale Aangelegenheden en Vreemdelingenzaken bij het ministerie van Justitie).

I have not been able to find a CV or biography of Mr Visser and have instead pieced the following information together from several online sources: He was appointed to the Director General position in 2003.  Before that he worked as an adviser in the Office of the Prime Minister and as Deputy Secretary-General of the Ministry of General Affairs (plaatsvervangend secretaris-generaal van het ministerie van Algemene Zaken).  He has also held positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  He holds a doctoral degree.  His doctoral research was published in a 2008 book entitled: “In dienst van het algemeen belang: Ministeriële verantwoordelijkheid en parlementair vertrouwen” (“Serving the public interest: Ministerial responsibility and parliamentary confidence”).

Mr Visser was the subject of a February 2005 Monthly Policy Interview by Eurasylum, Ltd. where he spoke about the “Key outcomes of the Dutch EU Presidency in the field of immigration and asylum.”  Here are some excerpts from the 2005 interview:

“In the months leading up to [the June-Dec 2004 Dutch presidency] … [t]here was an atmosphere where all Member States were clearly aware that far-reaching cooperation was necessary if migration management was to become, effectively, a success. … A case in point is illegal migration in the Mediterranean. This does not only create migratory pressures on Europe’s external borders, it also leads to human tragedies that make clear to everyone that people are risking their lives to try and reach the shores of Europe. Such losses of life are unacceptable and require a policy response. They also require a willingness to accept the consequences of any such responses. For example, a European response to illegal migrants who apply for asylum requires the type of European asylum procedure and uniform asylum status that had already been anticipated in Tampere. The situation in the Mediterranean also leads to pertinent questions on EU relations with neighbouring third countries. There are many more such examples, such as the demographic situation in Europe or the situation of refugees close to their regions of origin. An integrated and comprehensive approach is needed today as much as it was at the time of the Tampere European Council in 1999. However, since Tampere we have gained considerable experience and become more aware of the primary importance of practical cooperation among Member States and with third countries….

[T]he transposition process is a difficult process. The implementation of Community legislation within national legislation is a new phenomenon as far as asylum and migration are concerned. Many directives are complicated, because they are the results of very intensive and difficult negotiations, which have sometimes led to legislative texts that were not always easy to interpret. In my view this is a major reason why the implementation process is going so slowly….

In the Hague Programme we have tried to find a fair balance. We have not only focused on control measures, but also on the need for integration of immigrants who reside legally in the European Union. We have focused on a common European asylum system, but also on capacity management in neighbouring third countries and on the strengthening of durable solutions for refugees in their regions of origin. Cooperation with third countries is not likely to become fully effective if the focus is only on control. Responsibilities should not be shifted, but shared, and this is the spirit of the Hague Programme….”

Before Mr Visser may assume his duties as Executive Director he must first appear before the European Parliament to answer questions.

Click here for full Eurasylum interview.

Click here and here for EC Press Releases.

Click here, here, and here for articles.

1 Comment

Filed under European Union, News

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 26 Nov 2010 · 16:53

New Book: European Immigration and Asylum Law

European Immigration and Asylum Law- A Commentary, Edited by Kay Hailbronner.

As described by the publisher:

The EU has usurped essential parts of the national laws of immigration and asylum. Hence, European Directives and Regulations have become more important for the immigration departments and administrative tribunals. From German Courts alone, more than five referrals on the interpretation of Directives, especially in the area of the so-called Qualification-Directive (criteria for the recognition as a refugee,) have been made to the European Court of Justice. The immigration departments, too, are obliged to interpret national law, according to European Directives and Regulations. Accordingly, in most of the European member states numerous courts are required to decide on the basis of the European law in the field of immigration and asylum.

For example, the following pieces of European legislation have been dealt with in detail:

  • Directive on the qualification and status of refugees
  • Directive on asylum procedure
  • Directive on the admission of students
  • Directive on the admission of researchers
  • Family reunion Directive
  • Blue Card Directive
  • Directive on the return of third-country nationals
  • Dublin Regulation, including Dublin Implementation Regulation and Eurodac

Contributors:

  • Professor Hailbronner is Director of the Center for International and European Immigration and Asylum Law at the University of Konstanz.
  • Professor Astrid Epiney, University of Fribourg
  • Ryszard Cholewinski, International Organisation for Migration in Geneva
  • Dr Martin Schieffer, European Commission
  • Professor Achilles Skordas, University of Bristol
  • Professor Thomas Spijkerboer, VU University, Amsterdam.

Click here for link to publisher’s page.

Click here for Table of Contents.

1 Comment

Filed under Books, European Union

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 26 Nov 2010 · 07:24

INEX Report and Interview with Frontex Director Laitinen

A final report prepared as part of the INEX Work Package 3 “Value Dilemmas of Security Professionals” has just been released.  The Report is entitled “Ethical Security in Europe? Empirical Findings on Value Shifts and Dilemmas across European Internal-External Security Policies.”  The report’s authors are Dr. Matteo Tondini and Dr. Isabelle Ioannides.  The report contains extensive empirical findings and policy recommendations that are based primarily on two case studies: “the recent interception of migrants in the Central Mediterranean Sea undertaken by the Italian authorities” and “the implementation of anti-terrorism/radicalisation measures in the Netherlands and the UK.”

The report contains a significant amount of information which will be of interest to anyone concerned with migrant interdiction practices in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere).  I will try to post a few summaries of some portions of the report in the coming days, but in the meantime I wanted to call attention to an interview that was conducted in May of this year by Dr. Tondini with Frontex Executive Director Ilkka Laitinen as part of the research project.  A transcript of the interview is included in the report. [INEX Laitinen Interview 12May2010]

In the interview Mr Laitinen said that contrary to the information contained in the Human Rights Watch Report of 21 September 2009, Frontex had no involvement in the 18/19 June 2009 incident where Italian and Libyan authorities jointly intercepted and returned a group of migrants to Libya.  He noted that the recent agreements between Libya and Italy had closed the central Mediterranean migration route and that it is therefore now “the right moment for the Agency to intervene, with the aim of consolidating the results achieved so far … The only way of doing this is to cooperate with neighbouring countries such as Libya.”  And while Mr Laitinen stated that the “respect of fundamental rights is a crucial part of the European border control service” he also stated that “the right of boat people to claim asylum or other forms of protection outside [Member States’] territorial waters is not yet acknowledged Europe-wide.”  In response to this latter point, Dr. Tondini pointed out that it is the position of the Italian government that if an asylum claim is made on board an Italian vessel, the asylum seeker is supposed to be transported to Italy for the purpose of making a formal claim.

(Thank you to Matteo Tondini for sharing the Report.)

Click here for the final Report.

Click on this link- INEX Laitinen Interview 12May2010 -for the transcript of the Interview.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, Data / Stats, European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, Reports

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 25 Nov 2010 · 03:53

EC Request for Services: “Technical Assistance for the Identification and Formulation of a Programme of Support to the Libyan Authorities in the field of Migration” (26 Nov Deadline)

This was just posted on the SRLAN listserve.  The deadline for an expression of interest has been extended to 26 November (but this date should be verified):

“Dear Sir,  I would like to inform you about a new EC funded project, entitled: ‘Technical Assistance for the Identification and Formulation of a Programme of Support to the Libyan Authorities in the field of Migration’.

We are looking for 2 Experts mastering English, from January 2011, with the following profile:

Expert in Migration/Team Leader:

  • Master Degree (or higher academic degree) in an area relevant to Migration (Law, Political Sciences, Humanities, Sociology, etc).
  • At least 10 years of professional experience in the field of Migration.
  • Thorough knowledge of migration policies and strategies, in particular the EU global approach to migration and the international set of rules, laws and conventions related to border management, migration and asylum.
  • Experience in the identification, formulation, and management of programmes of support or technical assistance in the framework of the EC external aid to third countries.
  • Fluency in written and spoken English.
  • Knowledge of development issues in North Africa and the Middle East and/or Sub-Saharan Africa.
  • Good understanding of the social and economic policies of the EU
  • Ability to manage and lead a team.
  • Excellent writing and communication skills
  • Knowledge of Arabic is considered an asset.

Expert in International Law (other field could be International Relations):

  • Master Degree (or higher academic degree) or equivalent professional experience in the field of International law, International Relations or Migration.
  • At least 10 years of professional experience in the field of migration.
  • Thorough knowledge of migration policies and strategies, in particular the EU global approach to migration and the international set of rules, laws and conventions related to border management, migration and asylum.
  • Fluency in written and spoken English.
  • Good knowledge and working experience in the Middle East and North Africa Region.
  • Experience in project management, identification, formulation, implementation and evaluation of similar EC funded projects.
  • A good understanding of the economic and social policies of the European Union.
  • Knowledge of Arabic is considered an asset.
  • Excellent writing and communication skills.

Please find attached the ToRs for further details.  Should you be interested in partaking in the offer please reply by return of mail and send me your updated Cv (according to the attached model) before 21/11/2010 and I will inform you about the application process.

Nadia Bedhiaf
Assistant Project Manager
+216 71 76 68 66
+216 71 76 69 66
www.ccm-cg.com ”

From the Terms of Reference: “… The assignment will provide the necessary information for the beneficiary of the EU contributions (Libyan Authorities responsible for the management of borders and mixed migration flows) and Delegation of the European Union to Libya (DEU) to formulate a Cooperation and Technical Assistance Programme between the EU and Libya on Migration related issues, including management of borders and mixed migration flows.

The identification and formulation of this programme will be divided in two parts:

i) Programme to Support the Libyan authorities to enhance the management of borders and migration flows (10 million Euros) [and] ii) Programme to support the Libyan authorities on migration related issues, risks and challenges (30 million Euros) [***]

The assignment will include:

1. An analysis of the sector and needs assessment of the migration sector in Libya, in relation to border management, the management of migratory flows, and international protection. In this sense it will identify the social, demographic, financial, legal or institutional constraints to the implementation of actions and the design of policies to effectively manage migration in Libya.

2. Support the consultation and dialogue process on the migration related issues and policy between the Government of Libya and the Delegation of the European Union to reach a common agreement on the areas of intervention of the programmes.

3. Present in a clear and exhaustive manner the objectives, the actions, the expected results and the possible indicators of the programmes being identified and formulated. [***]”

Click on this link- TofR_066810_1-1 -for Terms of Reference and on this link- CVtemplateEnglish -for CV template.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, General, Libya, Mediterranean

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 24 Nov 2010 · 18:41

Eritreans Diverted from Libya Held by Human Smugglers at Egypt-Israel Border

Several organizations, including Gruppo EveryOne, are making an appeal on behalf of a group of 80 Eritreans who are reportedly being held by traffickers at the Egypt-Israel border. The Eritreans apparently departed Tripoli en route to Israel.  This incident provides anecdotal evidence that African asylum seekers are attempting to enter Israel because the Central Mediterranean sea route to Europe has for all practical purposes been closed by the Italian-Libyan push-back practice in effect since May 2009.

Click here (EN) or here (IT) for the Gruppo EveryOne appeal.

1 Comment

Filed under Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 23 Nov 2010 · 17:20

INTERIGHTS Litigation Workshop: Human Security and Migration (27-28 Jan)

Of possible interest to some readers. The deadline for applications [INTERIGHTS_Workshop_Application_Form] is Sunday, 12 December 2010.  Early applications are strongly encouraged.

INTERIGHTS‘ Europe Programme covering Council of Europe countries within Central and Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union is pleased to invite applications for a strategic litigation workshop on “Human Security and Migration” which will be held in London on 27-28 January 2011. The workshop is open to lawyers and human rights activists engaged in legal advocacy from Council of Europe states, especially those from Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Caucasus. To ensure a fruitful in-depth discussion, only a limited number of places will be offered.

Throughout the region, migrants – in particular, undocumented/irregular migrants, unskilled migrant workers, and asylum seekers and refugees – are vulnerable to a wide range of human rights abuses such as ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, servitude and forced labour, denial of access to justice, interference with private and family life, and denial of access to medical treatment and social services.  Moreover, due to their non-citizen (often irregular) status, migrants can be denied or severely restricted in their access to legal redress both in theory and practice.

The workshop’s objectives include:

  • – facilitating cooperation and exchange of ideas and experiences between local lawyers and human rights defenders who are engaged in litigation and other forms of legal advocacy related to human security in the context of migration;
  • – achieving a better understanding of the nature and scale of violations occurring in this context;
  • –  examining legal strategies to address those violations, including the identification of applicable legal standards and appropriate international, regional and national legal fora;
  • –  increasing the capacity of participating lawyers and NGOs to litigate abuses of human rights in the context of migration at international and regional level, especially before the European Court of Human Rights;
  • –  improving INTERIGHTS’ understanding of the legal challenges existing in the field of human security and migration and the ways in which we can participate in addressing them;
  • –  nurturing cooperation between INTERIGHTS and local lawyers and NGOs on the thematic issues identified below.

As an organisation focussing on strategic litigation, we are primarily interested in applications from practicing lawyers who have experience of representation and legal advice in cases involving serious violations of human rights of migrants or victims of trafficking.  However, we also wish to encourage applications from non-lawyers or non-litigating lawyers who are directly involved in protecting the rights of migrants. We shall prioritise applications from lawyers and activists working in Central and Eastern Europe (including Russia and Ukraine), the Baltic States and the Caucasus. In exceptional cases, however, applications from Western Europe could be accepted as well. We are especially – but not exclusively – interested in applicants who have an experience of working on any of the following areas:

  • (a)     treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, including issues arising under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, such as violations of the right to life, the non-refoulement principle in the context of expulsions and deportations, unlawful detention, ill-treatment in detention, inadequate procedural guarantees for detainees or persons subject to transfer, such as denial of access to a lawyer, and discrimination in the application of immigration rules;
  • (b)     prevention of trafficking and human beings and protection of the human rights of victims of trafficking, including in the context of transit countries and countries of origin;
  • (c)    treatment of migrant labourers/undocumented migrants, especially issues arising under Article 4 (e.g. exploiting their vulnerable position to deny remuneration or provide grossly inadequate remuneration for their work; coercing into work by withholding their identity papers or deliberately failing to regularise their legal status); and Articles 2, 3 and 8 (e.g. poor health and safety standards at work, a lack of access to health care).

To ensure that the workshop reflects current and emerging trends in the identified area and is practical use to the participating lawyers, all applicants are asked to submit the description of a relevant case they have worked/are working on. The workshop’s agenda will be shaped by the legal issues arising out of the cases submitted by the selected participants.

The workshop will be held in English with simultaneous interpretation into Russian. Therefore, it is essential that participants are proficient in either English or Russian.

All reasonable travel and subsistence costs associated with attendance at the training will be covered by INTERIGHTS.

To apply, please email a completed application form (SEE BELOW) to Arpi Avetisyan, Legal Team Coordinator, at aavetisyan@interights.org. The deadline for applications is Sunday, 12 December 2010.  Early applications are strongly encouraged.

For further information, please contact Yuri Marchenko at ymarchenko@interights.org.

Click on this link for Application:  INTERIGHTS_Workshop_Application_Form

Leave a comment

Filed under Colloques / Conferences, Council of Europe

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 22 Nov 2010 · 16:37

Commission Issues New “EU Internal Security Strategy”

Earlier today the Commission released a Communication entitled “The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action.” The Communication to the EP and Council contains 41 proposals in five general areas: organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime and cyber security, border management, and crises and disasters.  It contains a strategy which is described as an effort to identify, explain, and coordinate what the EU seeks to achieve in the area of internal security.  The accompanying Commission Press Release quotes Commissioner Malmström as stating that “EU internal security has traditionally been following a silo mentality, focusing on one area at a time. Now we take a common approach on how to respond to the security threats and challenges ahead. Terrorism, organised, cross-border and cyber crime, and crises and disasters are areas where we need to combine our efforts and work together in order to increase the security of our citizens, businesses, and societies across the EU. This strategy outlines the threats ahead and the necessary actions we must take in order to be able to fight them….”

Here are several excerpts (with some footnotes omitted) from Objective Number 4 entitled “Strengthen security through border management”:

“[***] In relation to movement of persons, the EU can treat migration management and the fight against crime as twin objectives of the integrated border management strategy. It is based on three strategic strands.

  • An enhanced use of new technology for border checks (the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), the entry/exit system and the registered traveller programme);
  • an enhanced use of new technology for border surveillance (the European Border Surveillance System, EUROSUR) with the support of GMES security services, and the gradual creation of a common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain [25 Commission communication, ‘Towards the integration of maritime surveillance: A Common information environment for the EU maritime domain’, COM (2009) 538 ]; and
  • an enhanced coordination of Member States through Frontex.

[***]

Action 1: Exploit the full potential of EUROSUR

The Commission will present a legislative proposal to set up EUROSUR in 2011 to contribute to internal security and the fight against crime. EUROSUR will establish a mechanism for Member States’ authorities to share operational information related to border surveillance and for cooperation with each other and with Frontex at tactical, operational and strategic level. [27 Commission proposals for the development of the EUROSUR system and for the development of a common information sharing environment (CISE) for the EU maritime domain are set out in COM (2008) 68 and COM(2009) 538 respectively. A six step road map for establishing the CISE was recently adopted – COM(2010) 584.]  EUROSUR will make use of new technologies developed through EU funded research projects and activities, such as satellite imagery to detect and track targets at the maritime border, e.g. tracing fast vessels transporting drugs to the EU. In recent years, two major initiatives on operational cooperation at the maritime borders have been launched – one on human trafficking and human smuggling under the umbrella of Frontex and the second on drugs smuggling in the framework of MAOC-N [28 MAOC-N – Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics] and CeCLADM. [29 CeCLAD-M – Centre de Coordination pour la lutte antidrogue en Méditerranée.]

As part of the development of integrated and operational action at the EU’s maritime border, the EU will launch in 2011 a pilot project at its southern or south-western border, involving those two centres, the Commission, Frontex and Europol. This pilot project will explore synergies on risk analysis and surveillance data in common areas of interest concerning different types of threats, such as drugs and people smuggling. [30 This project will complement the other integrated maritime surveillance projects such as BlueMassMed and Marsuno, which aim to optimise the efficiency of maritime surveillance in the Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic and the northern European sea basins.]

Action 2: Enhancing the contribution of Frontex at the external borders

[***] From 2011 onwards, the Commission, with joint input from Frontex and Europol, will present a report by the end of each year on specific cross-border crimes such as human trafficking, human smuggling and smuggling of illicit goods. This annual report will serve as a basis for assessing the need for Frontex and its joint operations and joint operations between police, customs and other specialised law enforcement authorities to be carried out from 2012 onwards. [***]”

Click here for the complete Commission Document.

Click here for Commission’s Press Release.

Click here for the Feb 2010 Council Draft Internal Security Strategy.

Click here (SW) for comments on Commissioner Malmström’s blog.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,