Tag Archives: Refugees

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 · 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 , , , , , , , ,

by | 22 Nov 2010 · 02:54

Israel Begins Construction of Border Fence to Block African Migrants

Israel today begins the construction of a 250 km border fence along portions of its border with Egypt.  The barrier is primarily designed to prevent the entry into Israel of African migrants and asylum seekers.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying that “Peace does not include the flood of illegal infiltrators, who come from Africa through Sinai … This is a blow which our neighbours in Egypt are also suffering from.”

The Israeli Interior Ministry reported that on average on a weekly basis 1,100 irregular migrants enter Israel along its southern border with Egypt.  The Ministry reported that over 10,000 such migrants have entered Israel in this manner so far in 2010 compared with 4,431 for all of 2009.

The construction project will take at least one year to complete and will include sensors and other devices designed to detect persons along the border.

One effect of such a fence will be the diversion of migrants and asylum seekers who will either attempt to cross at unfenced portions of the border or pursue new destinations, with or without the assistance of human traffickers.

Click here, here, and here for articles.

Click here for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel “Refugee and Asylum-Seeker” Fact Sheet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data / Stats, Egypt, Israel, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 21 Nov 2010 · 05:18

Migreurop Report: European borders- Controls, detention and deportations

Migreurop has released its second report on Europe’s borders: “European borders- Controls, detention and deportations.”  Migreurop describes the report as a “[denunciation of] the « externalization » process of the European union migratory policy [which] shows how third countries are obliged, through the threat of the reconsideration of cooperation agreements and development aid, not only to readmit the migrants chased from Europe, but also to keep them on their own territory from travelling towards its doors.   From Calais area in France to the edge of Turkey and the Adriatic sea, from the surroundings of Gibraltar to the Sahel Saharan desert and the new member states of eastern Europe, a subcontracting of migratory control is carried out in series, sometimes very far away from the Union but also within its territory, especially when it deals with sending asylum seekers from country to country considered as unwanted. A large population of exiles, from both sides of the European borders, is subjected to arbitrary incarceration, wandering, and the constant humiliation of a hostile environment….”

Here is the Table of Contents:

Introduction

  • What have migrants become 3

Ceuta, a gilded prison

  • A murderous border 7
  • A legal limbo 8
  • The situation of migrants in detention 8
  • The situation of migrants in the CETI (open centre) 9
  • Deportations and expulsions 12
  • Surviving without resources 14

Sahel-Saharan countries, Europe’s new sentries

  • I – European interference in inter-African migrations – the case of Mauritania 18
    • The “crisis of the cayucos” 18
    • 1. Cooperation instigated by Europe 18
    • 2. Mauritania tramples on its own principles and conforms 21
    • 3. Subcontracting repression and endangering foreigners 22
  • II – Bargaining between Libya and Europe: migrants as an exchange currency –the case of Niger 33
    • 1. A reciprocal exploitation 34
    • 2. An increasingly repressive control of borders 37
    • 3. Arrests and detention in Libyan territory 39
    • 4. A deadly expulsion policy 42
  • Conclusion: the real face of Kadhafi’s pan-Africanism 44

Poland, Romania: how to be good state members in the enlarged EU

  • I – At the new frontiers: the screening of migration 47
    • 1. Reducing the transit and deserving Schengen 48
    • 2. The border police, Frontex and cooperation with other European states 48
  • II – Reception and detention centres 52
    • 1. The detention of foreigners 52
    • 2. Reception centres: isolating asylum seekers 60
    • 3. “Dublinized” asylum seekers 61
  • III – Returns 63
  • IV – Intolerance towards migrants and refugees 66
  • V – Embryonic mobilizations 70

The Ionian and Adriatic seas: forced returns between Italy and Greece

  • A new migration route at Europe’s gates 73
  • I – Controlling and blocking 75
    • 1. Controls in Greece 75
    • 2. Controls at sea 77
    • 3. Controls in Italian ports 78
  • II – Turning back and readmission 82
    • 1. Arbitrary practices and violation of rights 82
    • 2. The port of Venice: collective returns 83
    • 3. The port of Ancona 86
    • 4. Forced return to Greece 86
  • III – Detention 88
    • 1. At the borders and at sea: areas beyond legality 88
    • 2. Detention in Italy 89
    • 3. Detention in Greece 90
  • IV – Some cruel situations 93
    • 1. In Greece 93
    • 2. In Italy 96
  • V – Mobilizations 97
    • 1. In Venice 97
    • 2. In Ancona 97
    • 3. In Greece 98

Ping-pong at the Greco-Turkish border

  • Selective expulsions and random readmissions 106
  • Reactions to a degrading and sometimes murderous situation 107
  • Assistance, support, resistance 108

Dismantling the Calais jungle: a deceptive operation

  • I – The declared objectives of the 22 September 2009 operation 112
  • II – The real objectives of dismantling the jungle 113
  • III – The Modus Operandi: brutality and trickery 115
  • IV – What next? 116

Migreurop network 121

Annexes 122

  • Knocking down walls and defending the right to migrate 122
  • UNHCR-Libya : the bid is rising, migrants pay the price 124
  • All for the closure of camps for migrants, in Europe and beyond 125
  • Italia and Libya: hand in hand 127
  • Roma people victims of the French government xenophobia 128

Click here for the report (EN), or  here (FR), or here (ES).

Click here for article (ES) in Periodismo Humano about the report.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, English Channel / La Manche, European Union, France, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Niger, Reports, Spain, Turkey, UNHCR

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

by | 09 Nov 2010 · 07:02

UNHCR Issues Protection Policy Paper: Maritime Interception Operations and the Processing of International Protection Claims

The UNHCR has issued a Protection Policy Paper: “Maritime interception operations and the processing of international protection claims: legal standards and policy considerations with respect to extraterritorial processing.” (Nov. 2010).

The “paper outlines UNHCR’s views on extraterritorial processing of claims for international protection made by persons who are intercepted at sea.”  UNHCR’s position is that it is not possible to conduct a full and adequate RSD onboard a ship and therefore intercepted persons should in most circumstances be disembarked in the territory of the intercepting state to have their claims for protection considered in regular in-country RSD procedures.

The paper should be read in its entirety (17 pages).  Here are some excerpts (with most footnotes omitted):

“1. Governments in some regions have adopted, or are considering, measures to process certain claims for international protection outside of their territory.  This is particularly the case following maritime interception operations, 2  where asylum-seekers and migrants are prevented from reaching their destination while on the high seas or in the territorial waters of a third State. …

(Ftnt 2 There is no internationally accepted definition of interception, and its meaning is largely informed by State practice. A working definition is provided in Executive Committee Conclusion No. 97 (LIV) (2003) on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, available at http://www.unhcr.org/41b041534.html .)

4. If extraterritorial processing is part of a comprehensive or cooperative strategy to address mixed movements, the location of reception and processing arrangements is only one relevant element. With its 10-Point Plan on Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration, (‘10-Point Plan’), UNHCR has developed a tool that provides suggestions across a number of areas, … This paper should be read in conjunction with the 10-Point Plan, and related strategies for comprehensive State cooperation in this field.

[…]

9. The existence of jurisdiction triggers State responsibilities under international human rights and refugee law.  It is generally recognized that a State has jurisdiction, and consequently is bound by international human rights and refugee law, if it has effective de jure and/or de facto control over a territory or over persons….

(Ftnt 10 Some governments have argued that an intercepting State may not have jurisdiction under international law over persons located on parts of its territory that have been excised under domestic law (e.g. declared ‘international’ or ‘transit’ areas in airports, ports and border areas, or other parts of State territory including remote territories or islands), on high seas, or on the territory of a third State that is under the control of the intercepting State (e.g. because the intercepting State is responsible for a military base or reception centre). Such arguments are inconsistent with the notion of jurisdiction under international law. Domestic law is not determinative of the existence of jurisdiction as a matter of fact under international law: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679, entered into force 27 January 1980, Article 27 (providing that a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty); see also Article 3 of ILC, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts with Commentaries (2001).)

55. Processing onboard maritime vessels is generally not appropriate. In exceptional circumstances, that would need to be defined further, initial profiling or prescreening onboard the maritime vessel by the intercepting State may be one solution to ensure that persons with international protection needs are identified and protected against refoulement. Following profiling, those persons identified as having potential protection needs would need to be disembarked in the territory of the intercepting State to have their international protection claims considered in regular in-country RSD procedures….

56. In general the carrying out of full RSD procedures onboard maritime vessels will not be possible, as there can be no guarantee of reception arrangements and/or asylum procedures in line with international standards….”

(My thanks to Dr. Neil Falzon, former Head of UNHCR’s Malta Office, for bringing this to my attention over a week ago – and my apologies for being behind in email and updates. –nwf)

Click here for complete Paper.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Statements, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 09 Nov 2010 · 04:56

Yemen to End Prima Facie Refugee Status for Somalis

Yemen announced a plan to end its policy of granting prima facie refugee status to Somali nationals.  If the change is approved by the Council of Ministers, arriving Somalis would be required to make individual requests for refugee status.  The Yemen Observer reported that “[a]ccording to Essam al-Mahbashi, member of the National Committee for Refugee Affairs (NACRA), not all Somalis are fleeing conflict as many of them come from safe regions such as the port of Bosasso in the Puntland region of northern Somalia in search of better economic opportunities. Al-Mahbashi said that the emergence of extremist groups in Somalia like al-Shabab al-Mujahideen is one of the reasons why Yemen wants to cancel the prima facie refugee status policy.”  “Patrick Duplat of NGO Refugees International (RI) told IRIN that RI encouraged countries, including Yemen, to offer Somalis the broadest protection mechanisms possible given the current situation in their homeland. However, he said Yemen’s new policy would be in line with newly issued UNHCR guidelines on Somalis that allow for such screening but call for those Somalis not granted refugee status to be afforded ‘complementary forms of international protection.’”

Click here for article.

1 Comment

Filed under Gulf of Aden, News, Somalia, UNHCR, Yemen

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | 12 Oct 2010 · 05:56

New Paper: M Tondini, “Fishers of Men? The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya”

A new legal paper by Dr Matteo Tondini entitled “Fishers of Men? The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya” is available.  This paper should be read by anyone with any interest in Italy’s current push-back practice with Libya.  Dr Tondini is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam – Faculty of Social Sciences – Department of Governance Studies.  The paper has been produced as part of the INEX Project, financed by the EC under the FP7 (http://www.inexproject.eu).

The paper refers to some unpublished material and interviews. Here is the abstract:

“This paper presents an extensive account and assesses the legality of the recent naval constabulary operations – undertaken by Italian and Libyan military vessels – in the central Mediterranean Sea, aimed at intercepting boat people in international waters and returning them to the Northern African coasts. If considered as a border control operation, the interception of migrants and their debarkation in a third country often lacks a valid legal basis. The latter is easier to be found under maritime law, by ‘labelling’ interceptions as rescue missions. Nevertheless, such operations must be conducted according to state obligations under human rights law and refugee law (especially the non-refoulement rule), which only allow Italian vessels to disembark boat people to a ‘safe third country’. The paper concludes that since Libya cannot be considered a ‘safe third country’ in this sense, the interception of migrants on the high seas and their forced return to Tripoli may entail violations of maritime, human rights, migration and refugee law at both an international, European and domestic level.”

Click here or here to access the paper.

(Thank you to Dr Tondini for bringing this paper to my attention.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean

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

by | 12 Oct 2010 · 05:23

ECRE Critical of EU Migration Agreement with Libya

ECRE has posted a statement on its web site that is very critical of the recent EU-Libya Migration agreement.  Also posted is an interview with MEP Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, France) who is a member of the LIBE Committee where she discusses the human rights implications of the EU agreement.

Excerpts from ECRE’s Statement:  “It is difficult to understand why the EU is finalising a deal with the political dictatorship in Libya on issues that impact the fundamental rights of thousands of people. In June this year, Tripoli ordered the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, to close its offices in the country, a perfect illustration of Libya’s particular understanding of refugee protection and the unreliable nature of the regime under Colonel Gaddafi. Can we honestly think that refugees are safe in Libya? …

Through this ‘migration cooperation agenda’, the EU is trusting Libya to stop irregular migration towards Europe and to decide on the fate of those asylum seekers who will find it now even harder to reach safety in Europe. This follows last year’s highly questionable agreement between Rome and Tripoli to allow Italy to push back migrants to Libya without assessing their need for international protection. Since then, hardly any refugee has managed to reach Italy by sea. The EU Governments and the European Commission have so far turned a blind eye….

In particular, EU representatives have committed to assist Tripoli in reinforcing its capacity to prevent migrants from entering Libya through its Southern borders and in developing its patrolling capacities in its territorial waters and at high sea. The agreement also covers EU’s assistance to Libya in screening migrants in order to identify those in need of international protection. By setting up EU-sponsored asylum processing centres in Libya, EU States would evade their obligations to protect refugees and shift the responsibility to a country with an appalling human rights record….”

Click here for full statement.

Click here (EN) and here (FR) for interview with MEP Sylvie Guillaume.

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,