Copy

The ECRE Weekly Bulletin provides information about the latest European developments in the areas of asylum and refugee protection.ECRE is a pan-European alliance of 90 NGOs protecting and advancing the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons.If you would like to know more about ECRE’s advocacy work, policy positions, press releases and projects, please visit our website at www.ecre.org, find us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

     
22 November 2019
  
Do you want to receive this or other newsletters from ECRE? You can subscribe following this link.

EDITORIAL

EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

EUROPEAN COURTS AND INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS

REPORTS & NGO ACTIONS

INTERVIEW
  

EDITORIAL

Containment instead of Protection: EU Politics in Greece and the Balkans

The last few weeks have seen a spate of developments that will have a lasting and probably damaging impact on the EU’s relations with its neighbours to the southeast – and also on the tens of thousands seeking protection who remain in limbo in the region, in many cases enduring appalling conditions without access to basic rights.

First, Olivér Várhelyi has made it through to be confirmed as Hungary’s Commissioner in the next College of Commissioner, now able to take up office at the start of December. While his background and role in Hungarian government politics is less concerning than that of the original nominee, László Trócsányi – in that he didn’t play a key role in dismantling the rule of law in the country – he has nonetheless served as a senior representative of the government and presumably endorses its policies. In the hearing in Parliament, MEPs quizzed him on whether he would pursue Hungary’s policies. The Treaties stipulate Commissioners act in the interest of the EU, not of the nominating Member State, and historically most have done so. Concerns remain though, heightened because he will hold the portfolio covering enlargement and neighbourhood. ECRE previously urged a switch because of the risks attached to Hungary importing its political priorities, including its toxic migration policy, into the successful accession policy and the less successful but crucially important neighbourhood policies.

Second, after blocking Accession talks with Albania and Northern Macedonia, and provocative comments on Bosnia and Herzegovina, President Macron launched proposals for an overhaul of the Accession process. Motivated by attacks on the rule of law – and on the EU itself – and a general lack of solidarity and obstructionist posturing from governments of some of the countries that joined the EU in the 2000s, Macron has become an Enlargement sceptic, with nostalgia for a smaller, more cohesive EU. The UK’s Eurosceptics can look on with a certain satisfaction: the UK was always the great cheerleader for enlargement, for some good reasons but also because “wider” Europe was the way to limit “deeper” Europe. As it goes out the door, it can look back at the tensions and challenges resulting from expansion, as yet unmanaged.

Macron makes an error in blaming the accession process though – the problem was and remains that standards demanded of candidate countries are higher than for Member States in a whole range of areas: rule of law, corruption, human rights. At its most simplistic, the Accession process uses leverage to support reform but once in the club a country can do what it wants. Enforcement of standards is weaker, and Member States are then unwilling to use leverage such rule of law conditionality on funding. Backtracking is inevitable, including on the human rights of those on the move.

Third, an agreement between the EU and Serbia allowing for operations and involvement of Frontex in Serbia was announced, following the agreements with Albania and Montenegro and the launch of a joint operation in Albania. The agreements include language on fundamental rights but enforcement mechanisms are very weak. They also establish immunity from the jurisdiction of the host country, even though under the current operation officers deployed to Frontex have executive powers and may use force. The EU insisted on immunity while the countries of the region wanted the same treatment as for local officers. This disparity is eerily reminiscent of previous international actions in the region, long a source of resentment, which saw immunity (and impunity) including for serious international crimes.

The main concern is the purpose of this expansion into the Balkans by Frontex, which is a parallel policy, and part of the overriding strategy of prevention of access to the EU at any cost. In practice, it means that tens of thousands of people have been left in limbo, many in degrading situation without access to basic services, among them many refugees unable to access international protection.

It is legally and politically inaccurate to describe this Frontex expansion into the Balkans as “externalisation of the EU’s borders”. This is a process based on the EU acquiring control over the borders of third countries. The EU's borders don't move; other countries transfer border management functions to the EU. But to what end? See below – clue: it is not to ensure access to asylum at borders.

Finally, the outgoing Commission issued its recommendation that Croatia be accepted into the Schengen area. ECRE urged against this recommendation due to the well-documented and widespread and organised violations of international and EU law taking place at Croatia’s borders. ECRE outlines its concerns and highlights risks and recommendations in a Policy Note published today; it continues to support litigation to address violence at borders across the region. ECRE recommends a robust monitoring mechanism at the Croatian border; an overhaul of the Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism to adequately cover fundamental rights compliance; monitoring, investigation and infringement proceedings from the European Commissions; withdrawal of EU funding if it is used to support  actions that result in violations; and support for independent border monitoring.

Collectively these developments suggest a worrying shift in the EU’s priorities for the region – away from the Accession process, with its emphasis on supporting reform, and towards a focus on pressuring the countries of the region to prevent onward migration. Rather than using its considerable leverage to support positive developments, the EU uses it to buy cooperation on migration control. It also turns a blind eye to violations taking place; certain European leaders actively encourage them.

Domestic developments in Greece, are also part of the picture. Following the rushing through of a harsh new law, the Greek government has now announced plans for large scale detention of asylum-seekers in the country, with a view to rapid return to Turkey or to countries of origin. The law limits rights and removes procedural safeguards.

Legal, political and ethical concerns arise from these changes, which have been widely condemned by organisations in Greece. The inflammatory and inaccurate language used by the Greek government has also been widely and rightly criticized. At the same time, it is far from given that these measures will make asylum processes more efficient (increased investment and use of procedural guarantees, such as access to legal assistance, are more likely to do so). Nor will they necessarily lead to an increase in deportations. First, legal challenges are likely given the number of people at risk of refoulement. Second, the main challenge to returns is re-admission by the country of transit or origin. How creating an even more hostile environment in Greece has an impact on these countries is unclear. Will it make Turkey accept back the suggested 10,000 rapid returnees to add to the 4 million people it is already hosting?

Responsibility also lies with the rest of Europe, however. As should always be noted, the situation in Greece that has provoked these actions is the result of the EU’s strategy, and notably the EU-Turkey Deal which ECRE has condemned from the start, as alternatives were and are available. As a result of it, the EU’s support for Greece and its priorities in engaging with the Greek government, shifted towards implementing the Deal – getting people back to Turkey – and away from other priorities, such as relocation, building up the asylum system, and integration.

The inevitable consequences of the response to the 2015/2016 arrivals of refugees is containment of people at the borders – either just inside the EU on the Greek islands or just outside it in the Balkans. The EU-Turkey Deal and the decision to close the Balkan route, based on an even more dubious agreement of February 2016, brokered by Austria and signed – not by heads of government – but by police chiefs, were always two sides of the same coin.

ECRE has urged a change in direction of EU’s overall policies on asylum and migration, arguing that the new Commission faces a clear choice. ECRE has also urged immediate measures to respond to the increased arrivals of people in Greece and sound crisis preparation given the likely larger increases that will follow from the volatile political situation in Turkey and the deteriorating operational situation in Syria. These should include humanitarian and financial support for Greece and the countries of the Balkans; ending containment on the islands; ad hoc schemes for sharing of responsibility until permanent reforms are in place; insistence on improving asylum systems; investment in early integration processes; reconsidering the use of the temporary protection directive, not invoked in 2015; and so on.

But EU’s preparations are already there – this is it: maintain the strategy of containment in Greece and support it to carry out deportations; then, roll out agreements across the Balkans so that the EU can prevent access to its territory when people try to move. A gelling of the Accession process, or muddying it by using the considerable leverage it grants the EU to buy migration control, plus a commissioner for the region straight out of the Hungarian government, indicate not just a continuation but an acceleration of this approach. The rest of the Commissioners, the Commission services and the EEAS, and the European Parliament must be ready to monitor, to sound the alarm and to steer in a different direction.

Editorial: Catherine Woollard, Director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)

 


EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

Med: NGOs Defying “Complete Disregard for Potential Loss of life”

In four operations, NGO ships rescued nearly 300 people fleeing Libya this week. Amid deepened cooperation between EU member states and the so-called Libyan coastguard (LCG), an NGO spokesperson denounces the situation in the Central Mediterranean as “worse as it has ever been”.

On Thursday, the humanitarian vessel Open Arms rescued 73 people from a boat in distress off Libya’s coast. Open Arms was alerted by Alarm Phone, which runs a hotline for people in distress at the Mediterranean. According to the crew those rescued, including a 3-year-old, a 4-year-old, and 24 unaccompanied children, fled Libya and were suffering from gunshot wounds, traumatic shock and serious hypothermia.

In the course of this week, the rescue vessel Ocean Viking, operated jointly by SOS MEDITERRANEE and Doctors Without Borders (MSF), rescued a total of 215 people in three separate operations off the coast of Libya after being alerted by Alarm Phone. During the first rescue on Tuesday a boat of the LCG approached the Ocean Viking following the successful operation, ordering it to alter its course.

“The situation in the Central Mediterranean, from my experience, is as worse as it has ever been over the last couple of years. There is no coordination in the area. There seems to be a complete disregard for potential loss of life regarding people fleeing Libya by boat”, Nicholas Romaniuk, SOS MEDITERRANEE SAR Coordinator commented.

Last week, Maltese press revealed information about a secret agreement between Malta and Libya under which the Armed Forces of Malta coordinate with the LCG to have them intercept people headed towards the island and return them to Libya. While a government spokesperson said that Malta always acts in accordance with applicable international laws and conventions, there is evidence that the LCG in several instances entered Maltese waters to pull-back boats with refugees and return them to Libya after coordination with Maltese authorities. In other instances, an Alarm Phone report states that Maltese authorities “repeatedly delayed” rescues exposing people in distress to unnecessary, life-endangering risks. The Maltese agreement comes on top of the continued training and logistical support of the Libyan coastguard despite knowledge of the conditions people face upon being returned to Libya.

Due to its geographic location Malta takes in a disproportionally high amount of people fleeing across the Mediterranean and is struggling to provide sufficient and adequate reception facilities. Those rescued also face serious delays in relocations to other EU member states, such as Germany, which pledged to take them in.

Missing Migrants has recorded 1086 deaths of people trying to reach Europe via the Mediterranean in 2019.

For further Information:                                  

 

 

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

Greece: Return to Plans for Detention Centres on the Islands

The Greek Ministry of Defence announced on 20 November 2019 new plans for strengthening border control and effecting returns of asylum seekers to Turkey, including the gradual closure of  the Reception and Identification Centres (RIC) of Moria, Vial and Vathy on Lesvos, Chios and Samos.

The three facilities, currently hosting nearly 28,000 people despite a combined capacity of 4,502 places, will be replaced by closed centres hosting 5,000 people each. The existing RIC of Leros and Kos will be transformed into closed facilities with a capacity of 1,000 and 2,000 places respectively. The prospective facilities on the five islands are presented as “pre-removal and reception and identification centres”, hosting persons facing return, as well as new arrivals.

Greek law foresees the possibility of imposing a “restriction of freedom of movement” within the premises of a RIC for a maximum of 30 days. This amounts to de facto deprivation of liberty given that individuals are not allowed to enter and exit the facilities.

The RIC on the islands had already been transformed into detention facilities upon the launch of the EU-Turkey deal in March 2016, leading several actors such as UNHCR and Médecins Sans Frontières to suspend their activities therein. Due to limited capacity to maintain and run closed facilities with high numbers of people, de facto detention within the RIC of the islands was stopped at the end of 2016.

In the medium term, the government will be establishing more facilities on the mainland. According to available information, 8 to 10 new facilities are to be established in regions including Crete, Peloponnese and Thessaly – no details has been revealed of their expected capacity. These are referred to as “controlled accommodation centres” (ελεγχόμενες δομές φιλοξενίας), where residents will be allowed to enter and exit.

For further information:

 

Belgium: New Reception Shortages Prevent People from Seeking Asylum*

People seeking refuge in Belgium are again unable to their claims due to a lack of reception places in the reception system. On 18 November 2019, as many as 60 people were denied access to the asylum procedure due to a shortage of reception places in Belgium. They were instructed to return to the “Petit-Château” / “Klein Kasteeltje” in central Brussels the next day in the hope of conducting their registration.

The Association of Flemish Cities and Towns (VVSG) has sharply criticised the Federal Government for its poor forecast of reception needs in the country. Inconsistent demands from the Federal Government result in local authorities opening, closing down and re-opening reception places, to high financial and operational costs. Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen points out that the Government has contributed to the lack of reception places in Belgium, similar to situations seen in previous years.

Against this backdrop, the Council of Ministers has announced its intention to recruit additional personnel at the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) and the Council of Alien Law Litigation (CALL), to mobilise additional space for those authorities, and to launch urgent tenders for reception places.

The lack of reception capacity is a recurring concern in Belgium. Last year, the Aliens Office had introduced a quota of 50 registrations of asylum applications per day, which the Council of State found to be contrary to the Refugee Convention and the Asylum Procedures Directive.

For more information:

*This information was first published by AIDA, managed by ECRE.

 

Netherlands: An End to Legal Aid at First Instance*

The Dutch State Secretary for Asylum and Migration has announced that asylum seekers will no longer receive state-provided legal assistance and representation during the examination of their claim at first instance.

Applicants in the regular procedure are currently appointed a lawyer during the six-day “rest and preparation period” following the registration of their claim. Under the plan, they will only be provided with a lawyer upon rejection of their asylum application by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND).

The government’s decision disregards advice from the “Van Zwol” committee of inquiry (Onderzoekscommissie Langdurig verblijvende vreemdelingen zonder bestendig verblijfsrecht) to invest in frontloading and to maintain the provision of legal aid from the outset of the procedure. The committee highlighted that the early appointment of a lawyer contributes to forming a relationship of trust with the applicant and to improving the quality and accuracy of the application.

The Dutch Council for Refugees has warned the Parliament to oppose the measure on the ground that it will result in a deterioration in the quality of IND decisions. This will in turn entail heavier workload and higher costs for courts, as well as an increase in subsequent applications.

The move comes amid increasing delays in the processing of asylum applications. According to a report from the Dutch Council for Refugees over 8,000 people are waiting for an interview with the IND, some have been waiting for more than a year. Persisting delays in the procedure have exacerbated a shortage of reception places in the country. The State Secretary has commissioned an external evaluation of the implementation of the asylum procedure by the IND.

For further information:

*This information was first published by AIDA, managed by ECRE.

 

EUROPEAN COURTS AND INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS

ECtHR: Confinement to Airport Transit Zone Amounts to Violation of ECHR

On 21 November 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment on Z. A and Others v Russia, a case concerning the confinement of four men in the transit zone of the Sheremetyevo airport, Moscow. The court found the confinement a violation of Article 3 and 5 (1) ECHR.

The men detained were Iraqi, Palestinian, Somalian and Syrian nationals who had arrived in Russia under different circumstances. Upon their respective arrivals, the applicants were refused entry at the Russian border, their passports were seized and they were subsequently detained in the airport transit zone while their asylum applications were assessed. The applicants complained they had been detained unlawfully and that the material conditions were degrading and humiliating.

The Court noted that the Russian authorities failed to acknowledge that they were responsible for the applications, leaving the applicants in a state of “legal limbo”. The detention had been prolonged by significant delays lasting between five months and one year and nine months because of the inaction of the Russian authorities. The Court observed that the deprivation of liberty in the transit zone was significant: the restricted liberty was involuntary; the area was under permanent control; and there existed no practical possibility for the men to leave the area of detention. In concluding, the Court held that the detention was unlawful and violated the Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

While detained, the applicants were forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor in a permanently lit room with restricted access to health care, legal services and other facilities. The Court noted that such “appalling material conditions” violated Article 3 ECHR and were unsuitable for long term detention.

 

ECtHR: Failure to Assess Risk of Return Violated Article 3 ECHR

On 21 November 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment on the detention of two Bangladeshi nationals in the Röszke transit zone and their subsequent removal to Serbia.

The case was referred to the Grand Chamber (GC) by the Hungarian government following the Chamber judgment delivered on 14 March 2017(see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (no. 47287/15).The case concerned two Bangladeshi nationals who transited through Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia before reaching Hungary, where they immediately applied for asylum and were held in a transit zone for 23 days. They were then sent back to Serbia based on a 2015 Government Decree listing Serbia as a “safe third country”.

The Grand Chamber concurred that the Hungarian authorities did not act in compliance with their duty to safely assess the applicants’ risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in the event of return to Serbia. The Court added that it is the duty of the removing State to assess the real risk the applicant would face in the receiving third country. Indeed, the Hungarian authorities did not take into account available and reliable information regarding the risk of refoulement from Serbia, administrative deficiencies to assess asylum claims, or denials of the right to apply for asylum for readmitted persons. Although the applicants were able to make detailed submissions in the domestic proceedings and were legally represented, the Court was not convinced that this meant that the national authorities had given sufficient attention to the risks of denial of access to an effective asylum procedure in Serbia. The Court therefore found that Hungary had acted contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

Notwithstanding this, the court found that the material detention conditions in the transit zone as well as the length of detention did not reach the threshold to find a violation under Article 3.

On the question of the lawfulness of detention, the Court noted that while the applicants’ freedom of movement had been significantly restricted, it was deemed to be necessary in relation to their asylum procedures. It added, inter alia, that the applicants were not prevented from leaving of their own free will to another country other than Serbia without them facing a direct threat to their life. The Court therefore concluded that the applicants had not been deprived of their liberty within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

CJEU: Withdrawal of Material Reception Conditions not a Lawful Sanction for Violation of House Rules*

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered today its judgment in Haqbin, where it ruled that Member States cannot order the withdrawal, even temporary, of material reception conditions in case an asylum seeker seriously violates the house rules of a reception centre or exhibits violent behaviour.

Article 20(4) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive permits states to lay down sanctions against such conduct. In its reference for a preliminary ruling, the Belgian referring court requested the CJEU to clarify whether a withdrawal of material reception conditions would be permissible.

The Court found that a withdrawal of accommodation, food and clothing, even for a short period of time, would be incompatible with states’ duty to ensure applicants a dignified standard of living under Article 20(5) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive and Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the principle of proportionality. The CJEU noted that permissible sanctions against serious breaches of house rules and violent behaviour include accommodation in separate parts of the reception centre, prohibition on contacting certain residents or transfer to a different facility.

Several EU countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Italy, Spain, Greece) currently allow withdrawal of material reception conditions as a sanction where an applicant seriously violates the house rules of a reception centre or exhibits violent behaviour

For further information:

*This information was first published by AIDA, managed by ECRE.

 

REPORTS & NGO ACTIONS

New Research Demonstrates that Search and Rescue is Not a Pull Factor

New research published by the European University Institute suggests that Search and Rescue (SAR) activities in the Mediterranean, especially those carried out by NGOs, are not incentivizing departures of boats from Libyan shores.

Combining data from UNHCR, IOM and the Italian Coast Guard, the report finds that there is no significant relationship between NGO’s SAR activity and the departures from the Libyan coast between 2014 and 2018. A closer analysis on presence of NGO ships in the first ten months of 2019, where NGOs remained the only actor conducting SAR, similarly concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that departures increased when NGO ships were at sea during the period considered. Instead, the research finds that the agreement between Italy and the Libyan militias from July 2017, weather conditions and violent conflict in Libya in April 2019 had an impact on departures from Libya.

The research contributes to the critical analysis of the ‘pull factor’ argument used by European governments as a justification to curb SAR efforts. As defined by the authors, the pull factor hypothesis holds that, all else equal, the higher the likelihood that migrants will be rescued at sea and disembarked in Europe, the higher will be the number of attempted crossings.

The authors call on the need for more data and further research on this issue. They recommend reconsidering government policies disincentivising SAR operations and restoring EU-led missions combining SAR and border enforcement, like Mare Nostrum. They call for effective, lawful and ethically defensible migration governance across the Central Mediterranean.

For further information:

 


Policy Note: Time to Commit: Using the Global Refugee Forum

ECRE has published a Policy Note on the implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) in and by Europe and set out recommendations for the EU and its Member States (MS) to pledge to the Global Refugee Forum.

The Global Refugee Forum will be an important opportunity for the EU to demonstrate that it is committed to implementing the GCR and to sharing responsibility for welcoming and supporting refugees, including by enhancing protection for refugees both within and outside Europe.

The Policy Note focus on the aspects of the GCR which, based on ECRE’s analysis, require specific action by either EU institutions or Member States to fulfil the objectives of the Compact. It also sets out concrete recommendations regarding related pledges that could be made at the Global Refugee Forum.

This includes supporting access to asylum and ensuring adequate and dignified reception in Europe. For this purpose, EU Member States should prioritise right-based implementation of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU) particularly in relation to access to the procedure and special protection guarantees and adequate reception conditions. The European Commission should monitor and evaluate the implementation of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and the implementation of the Reception Conditions Directive.

ECRE calls on MS to expand resettlement and complementary pathways to Europe in order to provide protection for those in needs. Therefore, the EU should collectively pledge at least 30,000 resettlement places which should be realised in 2020. EU MS should expand complementary pathways (e.g. humanitarian visas, community/private based sponsorship, scholarship for refugees) which should be additional to the MS pledges on resettlement, rather than substituting them. The European Commission should make the necessary funding available to support resettlement by MS, including for inclusion once refugees have arrived in Europe.

In addition, EU Member States should facilitate family reunification. To this end, EU MS should remove restrictions to access to family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.  Expansion of family reunification should be treated independently of resettlement quotas to respect the right to family life stipulated in EU law.

In the Policy Note ECRE argues that the creation of inclusive European societies with the systematic inclusion of refugees should be at the center of policies. EU institutions and MS should champion inclusive approaches to policy making in the field of asylum and migration by committing to the systematic consultation and ongoing involvement with representatives of refugee communities in all policy debates that have an impact on them. EU MS and the European Parliament should agree on dedicated resources for inclusion in the negotiations for the next Multi-annual Financial Framework, more specifically within the proposed Asylum and Migration Fund and the proposed European Social Fund. The European Commission should include a set of indicators to assess EU institutions and MS’ performance in its implementation in the renewed Action Plan for Integration of Third Country Nationals.

The EU’s external action should advance refugee rights and self-reliance, rather than pursue a migration related control agenda. EU MS should agree that migration related spending will be allocated to addressing root causes of forced displacement and agree on “Lives in Dignity: from Aid-dependence to Self-reliance” as the conceptual framework that guides migration related spending outside the EU. Any attempts of making support to third countries conditional on cooperation of third countries with the EU’s migration control objectives should be rejected by the European Commission, the External Action Service, MS and the European Parliament.

For Further information:

 

Joint Letter: Calling on Nordic and Baltic Involvement in European Disembarkation and Relocation Arrangements

Joint Letter November 2019

Stories and images of people stranded on boats in the Mediterranean have long been covering news outlets. People are stuck on boats for weeks without adequate support such as water, food, and medical care and ultimately risk being denied access to asylum procedures.

The ad hoc “boat-by-boat” approach, negotiating disembarkation of each individual boat for days and weeks, does not work. There is an urgent need to ensure safe rescue as well as timely and adequate disembarkation of persons stranded at high sea.

Ideally, a reform of the Dublin III Regulation, should be negotiated to establish a permanent mechanism for relocation. This mechanism must ensure equal responsibility-sharing between the European States and prevent situations such as the current humanitarian crisis on the Aegean Islands in Greece.

As agreement on such a mechanism so far has proven difficult, the European countries must find constructive alternatives which respect the safety and dignity of people rescued at high seas.

The recently established “coalition of the willing” and the Malta Declaration are positive and significant attempts to move forward. The declaration of 23 September 2019 is supported by Germany, Italy, France and Malta and further endorsed by more European states in early October 2019.

Although we remain concerned about the aspects of the Malta Declaration that seek to reduce crossings and effectively hinder access to protection in Europe, the core element of the mechanism to ensure dignified disembarkation and swift relocation of asylum seekers based on pre-declared and voluntary pledges by the participating European countries is urgently needed.

Joint European disembarkation and relocation arrangements can only work if supported by countries which are willing and able to contribute by ensuring adequate reception, processing the asylum claims in fair and effective asylum procedures, protecting those who need international protection and safely returning those who do not. The Nordic and Baltic countries have the capacity to contribute based on core values such as respect for human dignity, the rule of law and social responsibility.

We, the undersigned organisations, representing Nordic and Baltic civil society therefore support the current coalition of countries.

We strongly urge our governments to act in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation – both towards the people arriving at the European shores seeking protection and towards the countries placed at the southern borders of Europe – and to engage constructively in the proposed disembarkation and relocation arrangement. Joint letter calling on Nordic and Baltic involvement in European disembarkation and relocation arrangements.

 


INTERVIEW

#VoicesOfECRE: Bellinda Bartolucci

Interview with Bellinda Bartolucci, Head of the Legal Policy Department for PRO ASYL

ECRE is an alliance of 104 NGOs across 41 European countries and its diverse membership ranges from large INGOs with global presence to small organisations of dedicated activists. Members’ work covers the full circle of displacement from zones of conflict, to the dangerous routes and arrivals in Europe, to long-term inclusion in European societies, with their activities including humanitarian relief, social service provision, legal assistance, litigation, monitoring policy and law, advocacy and campaigning. We decided to share some of their voices.

How did you become involved in protecting the human rights of displaced people?

During my studies I actually specialized on environmental law. Later on I focused on human rights, keeping in mind that environmental law and human rights are closely interlinked and mutually dependent. I was trained by a lawyer for asylum law – a work that strengthened my will to raise a voice against human rights violations and to support individual asylum seekers on a bigger scale, too.

When I started supporting PRO ASYL in 2017, the political and public debate about people seeking refuge was already alarming. And it didn’t stop: even in my current position as the Head of the Legal Policy Department, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the new proposals imposing further restrictions of the rights of displaced people – be it on a national or European level. What seems to be forgotten is the fact that behind every political dispute and further restriction, there are suffering individuals: A desperate mother who cannot see her child after years due to the suspension of family reunification; a young man who killed himself after he was deported to a war-torn Afghanistan; an unaccompanied child detained in Greece, as there is no appropriate reception facility and no country willing to step in.

What is the single most inspiring experience of your career?

In discussions with decision makers you constantly try to point out the effects of their policies and the need to protect human rights accomplishments and high standards. In recent years, these efforts rarely reached the desired success. And yet: People don’t give up. Asylum seekers and refugees themselves as well as civil society and citizens tirelessly continuing to  support and fight. For me this is absolutely impressive! I was especially moved by the commitment of the initiative #unteilbar – Solidarität statt Ausgrenzung! last fall in Berlin. Nearly a quarter of a million people took to the streets to send a vital signal of belonging to a society that still takes a stand for the fundamental rights (of all the people). It was a huge celebration of a the fact that there is still a culture of welcoming refugees. This was as a tremendous motivational boost for my own work. It was also an important call upon politicians: We should build on our human rights accomplishments and from there develop new advancements instead of creating new burdens again and again.

What is your main professional motivation?

As a law student you learn, that you can go to court, if fundamental rights are violated. I am fascinated by the principle of fundamental rights and their enforceability – but reality tells a different story: Many people do not have access to justice! Globally there are more than 70 million people in search of protection. Fleeing, they are exposed to various forms of human rights violations: In Libya, people seeking protection are detained under horrific conditions, facing severe abuse or are forced into slavery. In the Mediterranean, people drown, and pushbacks, detention and abuse is a daily occurrence along the EU’s borders. The theoretical reference to legal protection hardly helps them: How can people access justice, if they are isolated and access is limited? If they are not granted even the most minimal rights, such as food, for example on the Hungarian border with Serbia? In Germany, too, there are initial reception facilities in which refuges are dispatched and isolated from any contact with the society around them.

If we want to replace the ideal of justice for all with actual justice for all we must keep drawing attention to human rights violations – publicly, politically, and in front of our courts.

 

RECENT REPORTS 



FEATURED CAMPAIGNS

Choose Respect: Together We Can Tackle Anti-Migrant Hate Speech. Hate speech against migrants and refugees is all too common, both online and in the real world. But it isn’t always easy to know how to react effectively – and it’s even harder to respond in a way which changes attitudes. In the run-up to elections, politics is a frequent topic of debate. But if the discussion turns nasty – either around the dinner table or on your social media feed – here are some tips to help you make a constructive contribution to a more positive discourse.


EVENTS


VACANCIES


CALLS FOR PAPERS & OPEN CALLS







This email was sent to <<Email Address>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
European Council on Refugees and Exiles · Avenue des Arts 7/8 · Brussels 1210 · Belgium