Tag Archives: Readmission Agreements

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

EU and ACP Fail to Reach Agreement on Migration in Revised Cotonou Agreement

Representatives of the EU and ACP (Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific group of states) signed the second revision to the Cotonou Agreement in Ouagadougou on 22 June.  The Agreement provides the basic framework for relations between the EU and ACP states.  The parties failed to reach agreement on revisions to Article 13, the migration provision.

The EU has been pressuring the ACP states to agree to changes in the Cotonou Agreement which would make it easier for EU member states to return illegal or irregular migrants from the EU to their home countries.  ACP states resisted incorporating such a provision in the Agreement, instead wanting to deal with readmission issues on a bi-lateral basis.

As a result of this ongoing disagreement, Article 13 of the Agreement will remain unchanged for the time being.  The EU and ACP instead agreed on a Joint Declaration (Declaration III) which was signed yesterday in conjunction with the revised Cotonou Agreement.  It reads as follows:

“JOINT DECLARATION ON MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT (ARTICLE 13)

The Parties agree to strengthen and deepen their dialogue and cooperation in the area of migration, building on the following three pillars of a comprehensive and balanced approach to migration:

1. Migration and Development, including issues relating to diasporas, brain drain and remittances;

2. Legal migration including admission, mobility and movement of skills and services; and

3. Illegal migration, including smuggling and trafficking of human beings and border management, as well as readmission.

Without prejudice to the current Article 13, the Parties undertake to work out the details of this enhanced cooperation in the area of migration.  They further agree to work towards the timely completion of this dialogue and to report about the progress made to the next ACP-EC Council.”

Click here for the full 2010 amendments to the Cotonou Agreement.

Click here for EU Council Press Release.

Click here for the Secretariat of the ACP States’ web page pertaining to the Cotonou Agreement.

Click here for the EU web page pertaining to the Cotonou Agreement.

Click here, here, and here for previous posts on the Migration provision of the Cotonou Agreement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Communiqués, European Union, News

Article: Overview of North African Bilateral Cooperation on the Removal of Unauthorized Migrants

The May 2010 publication by the Middle East Institute (Washington DC), Viewpoints- Migration and the Maghreb, contains several articles including “An Overview of North African Countries’ Bilateral Cooperation on the Removal of Unauthorized Migrants: Drivers and Implications” by Jean-Pierre Cassarino.

Excerpts from the article (at page 34):

“Since 1965, when Bourguiba’s Tunisia signed with Austria its first bilateral agreement on the repatriation of its own nationals, North African countries’ patterns of cooperation on readmission or removal have changed dramatically….

“[R]eadmission agreements are … one of the many ways to consolidate a broader bilateral cooperative framework, including other strategic, and perhaps more crucial, policy areas such as security, energy, development aid, and police cooperation….

“Faced with the uncertainty surrounding the concrete implementation of the cooperative agreements, some EU Member States, particularly those affected by migration flows originating in North Africa (e.g., France, Spain, Italy), set out to devise flexible arrangements while opting for different ways of dealing with readmission. These include exchanges of letters, memoranda of understanding, or other types of arrangements (e.g., police cooperation agreements and pacts)….

“Readmission is embedded in power relations that can shape the intensity of the quid pro quo. Following their proactive involvement in the reinforced police control of the EU external borders, North African countries have become gradually aware that they could play the efficiency card in the field of migration and border management, while gaining further international credibility….”

Click here for link to publication (see p. 34 for this article.)

Click here for the MIREM Project Inventory of Agreements Linked to Readmission.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union

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