Category Archives: Aegean Sea

by | 14 Jul 2010 · 05:16

Frontex 2010 1st Quarter Report: Irregular Migration at Sea Borders Less Than 10% of Peak Levels

Frontex has released information from its 2010 First Quarter report by the Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN).  A copy of the report itself has apparently not been released.  According to the summary provided, there have been significant reductions in irregular migration:

  • “[D]etections of irregular immigrants at [all EU] sea borders … were less than one-tenth of the peak level (for the third quarter of 2008) when roughly 33,600 detections were reported.”
  • “[D]etections at the Spanish and Italian sea borders became negligible…”
  • “[D]etections at the dominant Eastern Aegean Sea border between Greece and Turkey also fell by more than 60% to just under 2,300.”
  • “Detections at the Greek-Turkish land border were for the first time greater than those at the countries’ sea border.”
  • There were “only 150 detections of illegal border-crossing [in the Central Mediterranean], compared to 5,200 detections in the first quarter of 2009…”
  • There were “only 500 irregular immigrants detected [in the Western Mediterranean] (almost 72% down on the fourth quarter of 2009 …).”
  • There were “only five detections over the first three months of 2010 [on the West African/Canary Island route], in contrast to 31,700 detections in 2006…”

Click here for full statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Algeria, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, News, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 13 Jul 2010 · 05:14

Frontex 2010 Annual Risk Analysis

Frontex’s Annual Risk Analysis (ARA) for 2010 was prepared in March 2010 and was posted to the Frontex web site on 7 July.  The public document only contains certain portions of the full ARA as recommendations and other “operationally sensitive details” have been redacted. While some of the ARA’s contents have previously been released by Frontex, this 35 page document contains a lot of data regarding irregular migration by land, sea, and air, and is worth a read.

Excerpts from the ARA relating to maritime migration include:

“Detections of illegal border crossing – In 2009, the [EU] Member States and Schengen Associated Countries reported a total of 106,200 detections of illegal border crossings at the sea and land borders of the EU. This represented a 33% decrease compared to 2008. The decrease is comprised of both a strong decrease reported from the sea borders (-23%), and land borders (-43%).”

“The bilateral collaboration agreements with third countries of departure on the Central Mediterranean route (Italy with Libya) and the Western African route (which Spain signed with Senegal and Mauritania) had an impact on reducing departures of illegal migrants from Africa.”

“The agreements were made at a time when the economic crisis decreased the labour demand in the EU, thus simultaneously reducing the pull factor. The synchronisation of these events probably explains why no displacement has so far been noticed from the Central Mediterranean and Western African routes to other illegal migration routes in the statistics for detections.”

“However, intelligence suggests that the risk of displacement remains high, either with the emergence of new routes or the exploitation of existing ones by nationalities which used to be detected along the Central Mediterranean or the Western African routes.”

“As a corollary to the sharp decreases registered in Italy and Spain, the number of detections of illegal border crossing in Greece rose from 50% of the total EU detections to 75% of the total. In 2009, the Greek land border sections with Albania and FYROM represented the largest share of the EU total, with 36,600 detections (34% of the EU total), followed by 22,000 detections in the Aegean Sea with (21% of the EU total).”

“Eastern Mediterranean route – The Eastern Mediterranean route is the route taken by illegal migrants transiting through Turkey and entering the EU through eastern Greece, southern Bulgaria or Cyprus. Turkey, due to its geographical position near the EU, is the main nexus point on this route. From Istanbul, illegal migrants may reach the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, or cross the land borders to Greece or to Bulgaria.”

“In 2009, illegal border crossing on the Eastern Mediterranean route totalled 41,500, or 39% of all EU detections. Most of the detections were reported from the Aegean Sea, followed by detections along the land border between Turkey and Greece. The number of detections reported by Bulgaria and Cyprus were considerably lower.”

“Central Mediterranean route – The Central Mediterranean route refers to illegal migration from northern Africa to Italy and to Malta. For the past two years, Libya has been a nexus point where migrants from the Horn of Africa and Western African routes and a small proportion of Asian nationals met before embarking.”

“Since the signing of a bilateral agreement with Libya, joint patrols by Libya and Italy have had a clear and measurable deterrent effect, with 3,200 detections in the seven months after the joint patrols (June to December), compared to 7,200 detections in the five months before the joint patrols (January to May), and almost 40,000 detections in the whole of 2008.”

“Western African route – The Western African route is primarily through Western African countries to Spain via the Canary Islands. The main embarkation points are in Senegal and Mauritania and the main countries of origin are Mali, Mauritania, Guinea Conakry and Senegal. Other African nationals have also been reported, and occasionally migrants from Asia. This route is now less favoured since the Spanish collaboration agreements with Senegal and Mauritania. The Frontex coordinated Joint Operation Hera plays a major role in maintaining effective surveillance in the area.”

“The Western Mediterranean route includes the sea route from Northern Africa to the Iberian Peninsula, and the land route through Ceuta and Melilla. It is mostly used by Northern African nationals (Algerian and Moroccan) travelling to Spain, France and Italy.”

“Maritime detections between Northern Africa and Spain are rising, with increasing detections of Algerian and to a lesser extent Sub Saharan nationals. Moroccan nationals are also regularly detected on this route. The lack of employment opportunities for the growing population of young people in Morocco continues to increase the incentives of migrating to the EU. The Spanish authorities recently reported an increasing number of attempts by Moroccan minors to get on the ferry link between Tanger and Spain. These cases do not seem connected with criminal networks; rather individual attempts are driven by poor employment prospects in Morocco.”

Click here for the ARA.

Click here for link to Frontex Map showing situation at External Borders.

[ARA page 18]

[ARA page 13]

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 13 Jul 2010 · 02:49

UNODC Publication: Smuggling of Migrants into, through and from North Africa

UNODC has issued a new publication entitled “Smuggling of Migrants into, through and from North Africa: A thematic review and annotated bibliography of recent publications.”  Most of the reviewed literature and data are from 2008 and earlier dates and therefore the publication does not include references to more recent events, e.g. the Italy-Libya migration agreement.  But it is a comprehensive and useful publication.  The 16 page Annotated Bibliography is a very good resource.

According to the UNODC web site, the publication “focuses primarily on the patterns and dynamics of migrant smuggling, as it concerns the North African region. Recognizing, however, that irregular migration and smuggling flows are transnational in nature, the review goes beyond North Africa, to also cover sub- Saharan African and European countries affected along the various smuggling routes.  The aim of the review is twofold: to describe major findings on smuggling of migrants; into, through and from North Africa, and to highlight the need for further research on specific issues that have not yet been studied.”

Table of Contents:

  • I. Introduction
  • II. Quantifying irregular migration and smuggling of migrants
  • III. Migrant smuggling routes
  • IV. Profiles and characteristics of smuggled migrants
  • V. Smuggler-migrant relationships
  • VI. Organizational structures of migrant-smuggling networks
  • VII. Modus operandi of migrant smuggling
  • VIII. Smuggling fees
  • IX. The human and social costs of smuggling
  • X. Summary of findings
  • XI. Annotated bibliography

Click here for the publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Algeria, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, UNODC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 01 Jun 2010 · 05:55

EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement Negotiations Continuing

The Turkish paper, Today’s Zaman, reported that Turkey and the EU have reached agreement on 19 articles of a draft readmission agreement, but have been unable to reach agreement on 5 articles.

The news article states that Turkey wants “the readmission agreement [to include] strong funding from the EU, mirroring similar funding that is available to member states under the “resettlement policies” within the European Refugee Fund (ERF), which was established to support and improve the efforts of member states to grant refugee or asylum status to beneficiaries.”

“The [Turkish] government also fears that, without a strong and clear readmission agreement in place, vetting thousands of immigrants and asylum seekers in reception centers while awaiting deportation will open a Pandora’s box for Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Turkey ranks second after Russia in terms of the number of cases ending up in the ECtHR and is trying to reduce them by introducing constitutional changes on fundamental rights, due to be submitted to a referendum on Sept. 12.”

“In April, for example, the ECtHR decided in three out of four cases involving refugees recognized by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that Turkey would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the expulsion orders were enforced. The court also criticized the unlawfulness and the conditions of their detention in a police station and in some of the detention centers where they had been held awaiting deportation.”

Click here for article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, European Court of Human Rights, European Union, Greece, News, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 01 Jun 2010 · 05:51

Colloque: les trajectoires migratoires vers l’UE au XXIe siècle (Marseille, 18-19 juin)

“La PLAGE co-organise avec la Bibliothèque Marseillaise à Vocation Régionale, l’Alcazar, et le programme MIMED (MMSH-Migration en Méditerranée), deux journées de rencontres et de débats sur le thème des migrations vers l’Union Européenne.

La première journée sera consacrée d’une part à la présentation et à la clôture de l’exposition cartographique et géographique de Philippe Rekacewicz « Frontières, migrants et réfugiés » … et d’autre part à une rencontre sous le titre : « Du Sahara à la Mer Egée : Horizon Europe ».

Nous aborderons lors de la deuxième journée la question des camps de rétention – « L’enfermement, une étape dans les trajectoires migratoires ? » – puis celle du travail associatif et des relations entre la société civil et l’administration, notamment dans le contexte marseillais.

RDV vendredi 18 et samedi 19 juin à l’Alcazar, 58 cours belsunce, 13001 Marseille.”

Cliquez ici ou ici pour télécharger le programme.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Colloques / Conferences, European Union

Tagged as , , ,

by | 17 May 2010 · 05:01

Details from Frontex General Report 2009 (Post 2 of 2)

Last week I posted a summary of the first part of Frontex’s 2009 General Report.  This second post summarizes the portion of the Report pertaining to Frontex’s sea operations.

The General Report 2009 provides selective information regarding the six major Joint Operations conducted at the sea borders.  With only one exception, no information or data is provided regarding the specific numbers of intercepted migrants or vessels.

Instead of numbers, the Report provides various descriptive terms which could mean almost anything.  For example, Operation Hera led to a “drastic decrease of migrants,” during Operation Nautilus there was a “remarkable decrease” in migrants, and during Operation Hermes, the numbers of migrants arriving and dying at sea “decreased dramatically.” The one exception is for Operation Indalo where the Report states that 750 irregular migrants and 10 facilitators were detected.

When desired, the Report provides details and numbers.  For example, Operation Poseidon utilized 4 open sea vessels, 6 coastal patrol vessels, 13 coastal patrol boats, six airplanes, 4 helicopters, and 152 experts who delivered 2680 man days of operational activities, but no data regarding the total number of irregular migrants intercepted at sea is provided.

Here is a summary of the information provided in the Report for each of the six major Joint Operations:

Poseidon 2009, Eastern Mediterranean (365 Days)

Poseidon was conducted along land borders as well as at sea.  Interpreters were deployed on board ships to facilitate the identification process of intercepted migrants.  Less than 10% of the interviewed migrants claimed their original nationality.  There was an overall reduction in migrant flow of 16% (land and sea) compared to 2008.  “The main operational objectives of the joint operation were achieved but there is a clear need for closer cooperation between local authorities.”

Hera 2009, Atlantic Ocean waters between North Western African countries and Canary Islands (365 Days)

Due to the permanent implementation of Joint Operation Hera and better cooperation from “involved African countries”, there was a notable reduction in migrants reaching the Canary Islands, 2280 in 2009 compared with 9200 in 2008.  Aerial and maritime surveillance conducted close to the territory of Senegal and Mauritania and local cooperation from police led to the decrease in migrants.  “Despite these clear successes, participation of more member States would greatly increase effectiveness and outcomes.”  [NF- While the Report does provide migrant arrival data for the Canary Islands, it is silent on the number of migrants intercepted at sea or within Senegal or Mauritania.]

Nautilus 2009, Central Mediterranean (172 Days)

There was a remarkable decrease in migrant arrivals in Malta.  A “significant obstacle to the effectiveness of the Joint Operation lay in the contrasting interpretations of the International Law of the Sea by Member States….”  The effectiveness of the operation compared with 2008 was not improved.

Hermes 2009, Central Mediterranean (184 Days)

“Due to the bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya, the number of people arriving from Libya, as well as the number of migrants died at sea, decreased dramatically….”  “In addition, the first examples of co-operation with Algeria should also be considered as promising.”  As with Nautilus, “differing interpretations of the International Law of the Sea led to a limited contribution by the Member States to the joint operation by maritime surface means.”  The effectiveness of the operation compared with 2008 can be considered as increased.

Minerva 2009, Western Mediterranean (39 Days)

The launch of the operation was delayed in 2009.  Its effectiveness compared with 2008 has remained the same.

Indalo 2009, Western Mediterranean (50 Days)

The lack of cooperation from Algeria is an obstacle for operational activities.  10 Facilitators and 750 irregular migrants were identified.

And as I noted in my earlier post, Frontex continued to devote the biggest single portion of its expenditures to maritime enforcement.  Almost 40% of Frontex’s total budget, over € 34 million, was spent on sea operations in 2009, constituting 55% of the operational budget.

This chart from the Report (p 23) shows the breakdown of expenditures within the 2009 Operational Budget (which was 71% of the total 2009 Frontex budget).

Click here for previous post.

Click here for the Frontex General Report 2009.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Algeria, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Reports, Senegal, Spain

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 15 May 2010 · 04:48

Greek – Turkish Migration Agreement

Greece and Turkey signed a series of agreements on 14 May, including a new agreement on immigration.  Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Athens to sign the agreements.

The immigration agreement will facilitate Greece’s ability to return irregular migrants who enter Greece from Turkey.  Pursuant to the agreement Turkey will designate a port in or near Izmir within three months as the location to which irregular migrants may be returned by Greece.  Turkey also agreed to accept up to 1,000 readmission requests per year.

Click here (EL) for Press Release from Greek Ministry of Citizen Protection.

Click here (EN) for article.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Greece, News, Turkey

Tagged as , , ,

by | 10 May 2010 · 05:48

Details from Frontex General Report 2009 (Post 1 of 2)

There is nothing really unexpected in the Frontex General Report for 2009.  If anything, it disappoints with its limited information.

The number of illegal border crossings at EU borders was smaller by a third in 2009 compared to 2008 and Frontex’s budget increased by 25% to € 88.3 million.

Frontex continued to devote the biggest single portion of its expenditures to maritime enforcement.  Almost 40% of Frontex’s total budget, over € 34 million, was spent on sea operations in 2009.  This constitutes 55% of the operational budget.  The Report notes that this cost is due to the high operating costs of ships and surveillance aircraft.

Expenditures for Frontex facilitated return operations sharply increased by 500% in 2009 to almost € 5.5 million.

Limited Information in the Report – The Report explains that Frontex made a decision in 2008 to decrease the level of detail provided in the General Report.  Frontex’s justification is that the Report “is mainly directed towards the general public” and the reduced level of detail “is more suited to this audience.”  This practice was unfortunately continued in the 2009 Report.

General Statistics – Overall there were 106,200 “detections of illegal border-crossings” at EU external land and sea borders in 2009.  This represents a 33% decrease in overall detected crossings relative to 2008, with a 23% reduction of detections at sea and a 43% reduction at land borders.

The reductions are attributed by Frontex to the economic crisis and to bilateral “collaboration agreements with third countries of departure” such as Libya, Senegal, and Mauritania.

Applications for international protection within the EU were 2% fewer in number than in 2008 and were approximately 50% of the 2001-2002 peak when 420,000 applications for international protection were filed.

Cooperation with Non-EU / Non-Schengen Countries – The Report states that cooperation with third countries, including neighbouring countries and countries of origin, is the critical element in “integrated border management.”   It describes Operation HERA as Frontex’s most successful joint operation due to close cooperation with West African countries, particularly Senegal and Mauritania.  On other fronts, “considerable progress” was made with Turkey consisting of Turkey’s appointment of a “first point of contact for Frontex related coordination issues” and preparation of a draft text of a possible Working Arrangement agreement.  “Ad hoc operational co-operation” was pursued when a targeted country was not willing or able to enter into a formal Working Arrangement with Frontex.  An “overriding priority” for Frontex in 2010 is the development of “structured operational co-operation with neighbouring Mediterranean countries.”  The Report acknowledges the existence of the bilateral migration agreement between Italy and Libya, but says nothing about its provisions other than to say that there were “contrasting interpretations of the International Law of the Sea” between Member States.  There is no criticism in the Report whatsoever of the Italian push-back practice.  It is obviously difficult for Frontex to criticise Italy, but was it not possible to note that most people and organizations who have considered the push-back practice have concluded that the practice violates international law?

New Partner Organisations – Frontex formalised a co-operation plan with Europol in October, a Working Arrangement with Interpol in May, a co-operation plan with IOM in February, and made a tripartite agreement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) relating to maritime surveillance.

More to follow: I will post a second summary with additional information from the General Report pertaining to the specific sea operations for which information is provided within the next day or two.

Click here for the Report.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 21 Apr 2010 · 03:03

Exchange of Letters Between COE HR Commissioner and Greece

COE Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg has released copies of the correspondence between his office and the Greek government concerning his February visit to Greece and his concerns over a variety of issues, including Greece’s treatment of asylum seekers.  According to the Commissioner’s web site “[t]he letters focus on the human rights of migrants, especially asylum seekers, minorities, and the conduct of members of law enforcement agencies.  In view of long-standing, serious shortcomings in the field of asylum, the Commissioner highlights the urgent need for the authorities to support the ongoing reform in this field with the necessary institutional capacity and tools for implementation. The Commissioner also urges the authorities to address the situation of unaccompanied or separated migrant children.”

Click here for link to the statement and the letters.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Commissioner for Human Rights, Greece, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 15 Apr 2010 · 15:56

COE Committee of Ministers: “Europe’s boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe”

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on 31 March adopted its Reply to COE Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1850 (2008) on“Europe’s boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe.”

Comments from the COE European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are attached to the Rely as an Appendix.

The Reply contains an acknowledgement that the Committee of Ministers was not able to reach agreement on the recommendation that guidelines be prepared for minimum standards to be applied to the detention of irregular migrants:

“5. The Committee of Ministers has taken note of the proposal that guidelines be prepared for minimum standards to be applied to the detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers. However, the Committee of Ministers has not, at the present time, reached a common position with regard to examining possibilities for Council of Europe action in this area. The Committee of Ministers underlines the importance of the relevant instruments of the Council of Europe, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in this field (see paragraph 9 below), as well as those emerging from the work of the CPT and the Commissioner for Human Rights. It notes the ongoing work in the European Union in this field, including the revision under way of the 2003 directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers.”

Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1850 was issued in 2008 prior to the implementation in 2009 of Italy’s push-back practice and the Committee of Ministers’ Reply does not make explicit reference to Italy’s push-back policy.  The Recommendation and Reply are focused on the treatment of irregular migrants as they arrive on the shores of member states.

But there are several statements in the Reply which should apply implicitly to the irregular migrants whether encountered upon arrival on shore or intercepted or rescued in international waters.

For example:

“6. Particularly significant instruments in this field, also to be borne in mind in the framework of any possible activity in this area, include Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R (98) 13 of 18 September 1998 on the right of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Recommendation No. R (98) 15 on the training of officials who first come into contact with asylum seekers, in particular at border points and Recommendation Rec(2003)5 on measures of detention of asylum seekers. The Committee of Ministers would also signal the “Twenty guidelines on forced return” adopted on 20 May 2005 and the Guidelines on human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures adopted on 1 July 2009.”

“7. The Committee of Ministers would also refer to other texts relevant in this area, such as its reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1755 (2006) on “Human rights of irregular migrants” in which it draws attention to the minimum safeguards provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights that can be applied to irregular migrants. It also recalls its Recommendation No. R (2000) 3 to member states on the right to satisfaction of basic material needs of persons in situations of extreme hardship, which provides a minimum threshold of rights which should be recognised regardless of their status.”

“10. The Committee of Ministers would also draw attention to the extensive work of the Commissioner for Human Rights in this field and to his recommendations to member states and his appeals for solidarity within Europe with those countries that are on the frontline and facing a very difficult situation. It also refers to the regular exchanges of views that it holds with the Commissioner during the year. These exchanges are both of a general nature but also concern specific country reports in which he addresses, inter alia, the protection of human rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, including, where relevant, those arriving by sea. [***]”

Click here for the full Committee of Ministers Reply.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Commissioner for Human Rights, Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe, Eastern Atlantic, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Greece, Italy, Mediterranean, Spain, Statements

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | 14 Apr 2010 · 03:51

Analysis of the Real Instituto Elcano- Frontex: Successful Blame Shifting of the Member States?

Analysis of the Real Instituto Elcano: “Frontex: Successful Blame Shifting of the Member States?” by Jorrit J. Rijpma, PhD European University Institute, Florence, and Lecturer in EU law, Europa Instituut, Leiden University.

Excerpts:

“Frontex in Short – Frontex can be seen as the outcome of a ‘re-balancing’ of powers between the Member States, the Council and the Commission following the communitarisation of the policy on external borders after the Treaty of Amsterdam, constituting an important shift from the intergovernmental coordination of operational activity under the Council to a more Community-based approach. [***]

Joint Operations at Sea – [***] Currently, the most controversial practice is that of the diversion by national border guards of ships back to their point of departure. This practice entails not only a real risk to the life and safety of the passengers on board these often unseaworthy ships, but as regards possible asylum seekers on board, it also risks violating the right to claim asylum and the prohibition of refoulement. The Greek coast guard has the questionable reputation of regularly diverting boats back to the Turkish shores. Italy has openly admitted to the interception and return of irregular migrants and asylum seekers from Libya under its 2008 Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation with the latter country. Both within and outside the Hera operations, Spain has been returning people to Senegal and Mauritania, but here at least the interceptions are formally cast in terms of rescue operations and transfer to the nearest place of safety.

Frontex: the Lesser Evil?- There are many reasons why Frontex can be subject to criticism. It could be argued that it is an instrument of an essentially flawed EU migration and asylum policy. [***] Finally, it could be said that the Agency reinforces a securitised perception of what is essentially a humanitarian problem through its one-sided mandate, the background of most of its staff in national law-enforcement agencies and its military-style operations. [***] However, it is important to realise that for the moment the Agency’s scope for independent action remains very limited, both in practical and in legal terms. Serious human-rights violations are more likely to occur in operations from national border guards removed from the public eye, than in relatively well-scrutinised joint operations. Frontex, being a Community body, is subject to numerous reporting and evaluation duties, as well rules on transparency. [***]

Conclusion: Efforts should focus on ensuring full respect of international rules regarding international protection and search and rescue and an authoritative interpretation of these rules in a broad sense. These are essentially political decisions. It is the Member States and the Community institutions, not Frontex, that are to be reproached for the failure to do so. [***]”

Click here for full Analysis.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Analysis, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 26 Mar 2010 · 03:52

EP Vote Allows New Guidelines for Frontex Operations at Sea to Take Effect

New guidelines governing Frontex enforcement operations at sea will now take effect even though the European Parliament voted on 25 March to reject the guidelines by a vote of 336 to 253 with 30 abstentions.  However, an absolute majority of all EP Members, 369 votes, was required in order to block the new guidelines.

Malta opposes the new guidelines.  The Times of Malta reported that “the European Commission and Council have managed to get their way and will be able to introduce new rules of engagement during this year’s anti-migration patrol missions coordinated by Frontex as the resolution to reject these rules approved by the Civil Liberties Committee last week didn’t manage to garner the necessary support of the Socialist group in the EP.”

“According to the new rules, all irregular immigrants and asylum seekers saved on the high-seas during a Frontex mission have to be taken to the mission’s host country and not to the closer safe port. This means that if Malta hosts a Frontex mission in the future, as it has done in the past two years, it will have to take all the illegal immigrants found at sea. Malta has already declared that it will not continue to take part in Frontex missions under these rules.”

An EP press release stated that the “EU guidelines say[]that border patrols have a moral duty to rescue migrants in distress at sea….  The guidelines cover ‘search and rescue situations and for disembarkation’ in the context of operations on the EU’s sea borders.  They state that Member States fleets operating under FRONTEX must render assistance to persons in distress at sea, regardless of their nationality or status, or the circumstances in which that person is found…. Disembarkation procedures should be carried out in line with international law and existing bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries.”

Click here for article.

Click here for EP Press Release.

Click here, here and here for earlier posts on the new Guidelines.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , ,

by | 17 Mar 2010 · 05:08

COE Human Rights Commissioner Expresses Concern to ECtHR Over Greece’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers

Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg has made public the third party intervention he submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 10 March.  The intervention was made at the invitation of the ECtHR pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2 of the ECHR, and is the first such submission of its kind by the Commissioner.

The intervention was submitted in case 26494/09 AHMED ALI v. the Netherlands and Greece, and thirteen related cases.  The cases all deal with the return of asylum seekers from the Netherlands to Greece pursuant to the EC Dublin Regulation.

The Commissioner’s Office notes in a Press Statement that “[w]ith the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 to the [ECHR], the Commissioner will [now] have the right to intervene proprio motu as third party in the Court’s proceedings.”

Excerpts from the Commissioner’s intervention before the ECtHR:

“Introduction – [***]

3. The protection of the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees is a priority theme of the Commissioner’s present work concerning all Council of Europe member states. The Commissioner has repeatedly stressed the importance of guaranteeing the individual right to seek and enjoy asylum and has addressed a number of relevant recommendations to member states. [***]

I. Observations on the current framework of refugee protection in Greece

6. The Commissioner is fully cognisant of the considerable, mixed migration (immigrants and asylum seekers) flow pressures that have been exerted on Greece, as is the case for other Mediterranean Council of Europe member states, for many years. The increase of irregular migration into Greece that has occurred particularly in the last five years has further strained this country’s resources. Nonetheless, the complex international phenomenon of migration should be dealt with by Greece and all other Council of Europe member states concerned in a manner which is not only efficient but also effectively respectful of the Council of Europe human rights standards.

7. Greece received the sixth largest number of refugee applicants in the EU during the first half of 2009 (9 800 applications).

8. In 2009, a total of 15 928 asylum applications were lodged in Greece; there were 11 recognitions of Convention refugee status and 18 grants of humanitarian status or subsidiary protection. The Commissioner has noted with concern that in 2009 the recognition rate at first instance was 0,04% for Convention refugee status and 0,06% for the other two statuses. The pending applications at first instance in 2009 reached 3 122. As regards asylum appeals in 2009, there were 12 095 appeals, 25 recognitions of Convention refugee status and 11 grants of humanitarian or subsidiary protection. The respective recognition rates on appeal were 2,87% and 1,26%. On 10 February 2010 the Commissioner was informed by the Minister of Citizen Protection of the fact that the total of pending asylum claims in early February 2010 was as high as 44 560, and found this to be worrying.

9. The Commissioner noted that during the first ten months of 2009 Greece received 7 857 applications from other EU member states to receive back refugee applicants under the Dublin Regulation. Of these applications, 2 770 were accepted and 106 rejected. The final transfers to Greece during that period totalled 995. [***]

II. Major issues concerning the asylum procedure in Greece and human rights safeguards

Legal framework  [***]

Asylum seekers’ access to domestic and international remedies

23. The Commissioner recalls his Recommendation concerning the rights of aliens wishing to enter a Council of Europe member State and the enforcement of expulsion orders, where he stresses the need for the right of judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention not only to be guaranteed in law but also to be granted in practice when a person alleges that the competent authorities have contravened or are likely to contravene a right guaranteed by the Convention. [***]

27. In view of the above, the Commissioner is worried that asylum seekers in Greece face a serious, real risk of being deprived of their right to an effective remedy in respect of the violations of the Convention of which they allege to be victims, which is guaranteed under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 39 of the Directive 2005/85/EC. The notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires a scope of review conducted by a domestic court able to address the key elements of whether there has been a violation of the Convention.

28. As regards access to the European Court of Human Rights, although this is guaranteed in principle for every individual within Greece’s jurisdiction, lodging an application before the Court appears to be very difficult in practice. The same applies for requests made under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court (interim measures): the number of such requests introduced from and against Greece seems to be quite low compared to other state parties, and can be linked to difficulties, described in other parts of the present written submission, in accessing interpretation services and lawyers, in particular for people in detention, and to the lack of proper legal information available in general.

Protection of asylum seekers from refoulement

29. During both his visits the Commissioner was informed by migrants he met and by Greek refugee lawyers about instances of non registration by the Police of asylum claims and of instances of refoulement, especially from Greece to Turkey. Such forced returns have occasionally taken place before the migrants were able to apply for asylum, but also concern ‘pink card’ holders registered as asylum seekers in Greece. Characteristically, during the Commissioner’s discussions with migrant detainees at the Feres border guard station in December 2008, one of them reported that of the group of 65 persons who were arrested in 2008, having crossed the Evros river, 50 of them were ‘immediately deported’. [***]

31. In this context, it is noted that despite the Commissioner’s recommendations, Greece has not as yet acceded to the 1963 Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights which, inter alia, proscribes the collective expulsion of aliens, while Turkey still adheres to the geographical limitation of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, thus excluding from refugee status persons coming from outside of Europe.

32. During his visit to Greece in February 2010 the Commissioner was informed of and concerned at another reported case of refoulement concerning a group of 43 Kurds who had arrived at the town of Chania, Crete on 18 July 2009; 17 of them applied for refugee status. According to NGO reports, on 27 July 2009 they were all transferred to the aliens’ detention centre of Venna (North East Greece) from where they were subsequently expelled to Turkey. A series of other collective expulsions of migrant groups, ranging from 30 to 120 persons, to Turkey (through the land border of the Evros department) from various eastern Aegean islands were reported by Greek refugee lawyers to have occurred in July and August 2009. The Commissioner was informed by Greek refugee lawyers of more similar collective expulsions that have reportedly occurred in December 2009, January and February 2010.

33. The Commissioner underlines that such practices are not compatible with member states’ obligations recalled by the Committee of Ministers Twenty Guidelines on Forced Returns (especially Guideline 3 – prohibition of collective expulsion) and with the states’ fundamental obligation under the Convention not to return a person to a country where they would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, or even Article 2. The Commissioner is concerned that asylum seekers returning to Greece by virtue of the Dublin Regulation may face such risks, jeopardising the enjoyment by them of their human rights enshrined in the Convention. [***]

Conclusions

47. In conclusion, the Commissioner considers that current asylum law and practice in Greece are not in compliance with international and European human rights standards. In particular:

– access to refugee protection remains highly problematic, notably due to the non-functioning of the first instance Advisory Refugee Committees, lack of proper information on asylum procedures and legal aid that should be available to potential or actual asylum seekers, widely reported instances of refoulement or non-registration of asylum claims;

– the quality of asylum decisions at first instance is inadequate, notably because of structural deficiencies and lack of procedural safeguards, in particular concerning the provision of legal aid and interpretation;

– existing domestic remedy against negative asylum applications is not effective;

– asylum seekers, including persons transferred under the Dublin Regulation, face extremely harsh living conditions in Greece.

48. Since the beginning of his mandate, the Commissioner has been following developments relating to migration, and especially asylum, in Greece. The Commissioner is pleased to note the new Greek government’s decision and willingness, shown to him during his visit in February 2010, to overhaul the refugee protection system and overcome its current serious, chronic and structural deficiencies.

49. The Commissioner fully supports these efforts and has urged the Greek authorities to proceed and engage with determination and commitment in the necessary legislative and administrative changes that would bring the Greek asylum system in line with international and European human rights standards.”

Click here for full submission to ECtHR.

Click here for the Commissioner’s Press Statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, European Court of Human Rights, Greece, Judicial, Statements

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 16 Mar 2010 · 05:15

EP Report: “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?”

At the beginning of March, a 200+ page report assessing the cost of asylum seekers on EU member states was released by the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

The report is entitled: “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?”

Excerpts from the Executive Summary:

“Background –  [***] Moreover, although asylum figures today are higher than in the mid 1980s, the number of asylum applications has not been steadily increasing as many assume. … There has been increased concern in tackling irregular migration among the European Member States, which has led to an increasing focus on preventing irregular migrants from reaching the EU. Consequently, joint efforts at border management, under the auspices of FRONTEX, have exposed grey areas in the international protection regime. For example, the extent of States’ responsibilities towards asylum seekers rescued or intercepted in international waters has been subject to debate. Operation Nautilus in 2008 illustrated the difficulties Member States face in agreeing on who should be responsible for asylum seekers amongst irregular migrants intercepted at sea. Member States have also been hampered by the lack of an agreed protocol to assign responsibility for any asylum seekers amongst the irregular migrants.

Some Member States, notably Malta, have protested at the uneven distribution of asylum seekers between EU Member States, and their experiences of particular pressures resulting from their geographical situation. Linked to this, European parliamentarians, NGOs, some Member States and other stakeholders have repeatedly pointed out that the Dublin system allocates responsibility for asylum seekers without attempting to share it equitably. The pressures on EU border countries have been a particularly contentious part of this discussion, but the discussion is not limited to these. In the last six years, Sweden has for example received 40% of the 100,000 Iraqis who have claimed asylum in the EU8….

Aim of the study – The current study aims to provide information and evidence to inform the ongoing debates. This is largely based on three overarching questions:

• What are the asylum related costs borne by Member States?

• Which of these costs could be shared at European level?

• How could these costs be shared? [***]

Key Findings

• Overall refugee numbers in Europe are relatively low. In 2007 Europe only hosted 14 per cent of the world’s refugees or people in refugee-like situations. In 2007 about 220,000 asylum applications were received within the EU27, only just over half the 2001-02 peak of over 420,000 asylum seekers, and about a third of the peak of 1992. This is equivalent to less than one asylum seeker per 2200 European inhabitants.

• The total size of asylum spending reported by Member States is relatively low. The total size of direct spending by each Member State has generally not been more than the equivalent of 1/14th of the international aid target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income. At €4,160m EU wide, these total asylum-related costs to EU Member States in 2007 are less than what UK citizens spent on pets and pet food in the same year….

• Some countries face disproportionately high asylum costs, with the share of asylum spending in relation to GDP being 1000 times higher in some Member States (e.g. Malta) than others (e.g. Portugal) in 2007. When cost of living is taken into account, the differences remain large….

• If no additional responsibility sharing measures are introduced and current proposals are not implemented, there will continue to be a highly uneven distribution of asylum costs and pressures across Europe. This study shows that there are critical differences between Member States and the costs they carry for receiving asylum seekers….

• Only physical relocation of asylum seekers will make a significant contribution to a more equitable distribution of asylum costs across Member States. If this is to avoid generating significant human costs and additional costs to the Member States, it is crucial that this is based on a voluntary relocation of the asylum seeker….”

Click here for the full report.

Click here for EP Press Service article about the Report.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Malta, Mediterranean, Reports

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 05 Mar 2010 · 04:25

Research Suggests 30,000 Drowning Deaths Since 1988 in Aegean and Mediterranean

The Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman reports that “Research conducted on migration patterns by a group of journalists has revealed that more than 34,000 illegal migrants drowned in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas between 1988 and 2009.”

Click here for article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Mediterranean, News, Turkey

Tagged as , ,