11 August 2025
CoE Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty raised concerns about persistent practices of human rights violations, including pushbacks at Greece’s land and sea borders
On 6 May, the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty published a report regarding his recent visit to Greece, whereby he urges Greek authorities to adopt a “zero-tolerance approach” to push backs and ensure accountability for abuses against people on the move along the country’s borders. As a written response to the commissioner, the Greek authorities claimed that “there is no systematic practice or operational planning of informal returns (‘pushbacks’) of third country nationals from Greece to Türkiye across the borders”. Additionally, they claimed that the actions of Greek police officers criticized in the report were justified as they were based on “lawful prevention of illegal border crossing.”
Bangladeshi national transferred from Italy to the pre-repatriation centre (CPR) in Albania, transferred back to Italy and then flown to Bangladesh
On 23 April, a Bangladeshi national who had recently been transferred from Italy to the pre-repatriation detention centre (CPR) in Gjadër, was first transferred back to Italy and then flown to Bangladesh. The entire process required four transfers over the course of a week and cost over €5,000 – amounting to almost double the average cost of a standard deportation procedure. According to records seen my MP Cecilia Strada during an inspection visit in late April, only 25 people out of the 41 who were transferred to the CPR in Albania on 11 April remained at the facility at the end of the month. According to Strada, one person had been transferred back to Italy, six had been released following court rulings, five had been declared unfit for detention and four had been repatriated. Strada described the situation in the CPR as “a hell compared to Italian centres” and “a shameful waste”, and expressed concerns about the 35 recorded incidents, including self-harm, that had taken place during the first 13 days of its operation.
Syria agreed to take back citizens trying to reach island by boat
According to Cyprus’ deputy migration minister, Syria is to take back citizens who are trying to reach Cyprus by boat. In line with the bilateral agreement between Nicosia and Damascus, two inflatable boats each carrying 30 Syrians have already been turned back. Patrol boats from the Cypriot navy and police intercepted the two vessels after receiving a distress signal. The boats were then escorted back to Syria. Speaking to the private broadcaster Antenna, Ioannides noted an increase in migrant boats attempting to reach Cyprus from Syria—a shift from recent years when most departures originated from Lebanon.
Criticism from NGOs over Commission’s designation of Egypt as a ‘safe third country’
Multiple NGOs have criticised the inclusion of Egypt in the Commission’s proposed list of safe third countries of origin. The organisations published a joint statement mentioning that this inclusion risks “severely undermining the rights of asylum seekers and weakening the EU’s commitments to international protection standards”. They further ask the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to “request a comprehensive reassessment of Egypt’s human rights situation based on verified findings from UN Special Procedures, EU agencies, and independent civil society organisations”.
The British Prime Minister in talks to set up “return hubs” with a number of countries
During his visit in Albania, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared he sees return hubs as “a really important innovation” and that the UK is “in talks with a number of countries about return hubs”. Nevertheless, Starmer rules out the possibility of sending rejected asylum seekers to Albania, as the Prime Minister of the country, Edi Rama, called the Italy-Albania deal a “one-off”. Despite Albania having been excluded as a potential host to British “return hubs”, the UK is considering other countries in the Western Balkans, according to reports from domestic media.
Proposal for reforming the ‘safe third country’ concept
The Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR) in the Pact on Migration and Asylum also encompassed a review of the Safe Third Country (STC) concept. On 20 May the European Commission proposed a Regulation regarding the application of the STC concept.
The STC concept does not form part of international refugee law, but is already however part of EU asylum law. The idea behind this concept is that instead of examining an asylum request, a member state applying the STC concept can issue a negative decision, claiming that the person can be granted protection in a third country. Thus, the person would then be deported to the supposedly safe country and not receive protection in Europe.
If this proposal is accepted, there will be a lack of access to asylum in Europe, as member states will find it more convenient to issue a rejection based on inadmissibility and possibility to receive protection in a STC. As a consequence, certain people will be denied access to a complete and in-merits asylum procedure. This can happen regardless of the fact that the people are refugees and even when the third country in question is, in reality, not safe.
Nine leaders of EU member states called a reinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights to allow for policy changes in migration
In an open letter at the initiative of Italy and Denmark, nine EU member states called for the European Convention on Human Right (ECHR) to be reinterpreted in order to allow for migration policy changes. The document was also signed by leaders from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
The signatories underline that the development of the court’s interpretation has limited their ability to make political decisions and that they consider it important to be assessed whether, in certain cases, “the court has over-extended the scope of the convention compared to its original intentions, thus altering the balance between the interests to be protected.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, together with her Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen, mentioned during a press conference that the letter seeks to “open a political debate on some European conventions and on the capacity of those conventions to deal with the great issues of our time, starting precisely with the issue of migration.”
The letter highlights some concrete changes that the leaders would like to see, such as greater freedom for deciding when to expel criminal foreign nationals or the possibility to take effective measures against states instrumentalising migrants at EU borders.
Rejection of asylum seekers at the border deemed unlawful by Berlin court
The Berlin Administrative Court ruled that the rejection of asylum seekers at the German border is unlawful, as it violates German law and is not in line with the EU’s Dublin system.
The case concerned three Somali nationals, two men and one woman, who were deported at the border with Poland. They were turned away at a train station after requesting asylum in Frankfurt an der Oder. The court stressed that Merz’s government had violated asylum laws, as immigrants cannot be turned away without first having their asylum application examined. The court decision is not open to appeal, after considering emergency appeals from the immigrants.
The EU extends temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees
The European Commission unveiled a long-term strategy that aims to either transition Ukrainian refugees in permanent legal arrangements or facilitate their return. The Commission recommended member countries to start transitioning refugees to permanent legal statuses. In addition, the Commission will extend the temporary protection for people fleeing Ukraine for an additional year, until March 2027, EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner announced at a press conference.
Two member organisations of ECRE have filed a new application seeking the annulment of Türkiye’s reclassification as a safe third country for refugees
The designation of Türkiye as a “safe third country” for refugees has once again come before the Greek Council of State. On 10 June, ECRE member organisations Greek Refugee Council and Refugee Support Aegean filed a new annulment application challenging the latest joint ministerial decision that reaffirms Türkiye’s classification as safe for asylum seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Citing extensive evidence, judicial decisions, and multiple reports, the organisations contend that Türkiye does not offer effective protection or genuine access to asylum procedures, and therefore should not be regarded as “safe.”
Continued failure to protect unaccompanied minors from systemic abuse and hardship within reception centres in Greece
An investigative report by News 24/7 has shed light on the ongoing abuse and hardship experienced by unaccompanied minors in Greek reception centres. While all children previously held in the “Safe Zone” of the Samos Closed Controlled Access Centre were reportedly removed by the end of May, the report notes that the whereabouts and living conditions of some remain unknown. Many were transferred to other closed facilities, where they continue to face restrictive confinement and a lack of access to basic necessities.
Commenting on the situation, Quitterie Pinton of the Human Rights Legal Project stated: “The truth is that, as long as these children are being re-detained, there is no legal basis for their detention”. “We are talking about illegal and arbitrary detention. It has reached such a point of violation of legality that it is now difficult to even formulate legal arguments. We do not have the tools to confront something so blatantly illegal,” she added.
In response, Deputy Minister of Migration and Asylum Sevi Voloudaki denied the allegations, asserting that the evacuation of the Samos Safe Zone was conducted “within the framework of the gradual decongestion and upgrading of infrastructure, ensuring the transfer of minors to appropriate accommodation structures, in full compliance with national and European guidelines”.
The European Parliament (EP) Subcommittee on Human Rights held a public hearing to examine the human rights implications of the EU’s memoranda of understanding (MoU) with its partners in the Southern Neighborhood
The hearing, which took place on 25 June, was specifically focused on EU’s financial support to Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania and Tunisia. The discussions centered around practical steps for improving human rights safeguards in different agreements, such as accountability improvement, establishing transparent monitoring systems and considering the suspension of redirection of EU funds in case of evidence of human rights violations.
Germany will begin deporting Syrians with criminal records
Germany’s Interior Ministry has directed the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) to act against “dangerous Syrian individuals and offenders,” confirming a Die Welt report. A ministry spokesperson clarified that serious criminal offenses exclude individuals from asylum protection and can result in revocation of their status.
Under a new coalition agreement between Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives and the Social Democrats, deportations to Syria and Afghanistan will begin with criminals and those deemed security threats. The ministry is in contact with Syrian authorities to that end.
Overall, from January until May, the BAMF initiated over 3,500 procedures that may lead to revoking asylum for Syrians; refugee status was already withdrawn in 57 cases and subsidiary protection in 22. Around 800 Syrians returned voluntarily during that time under a German-funded repatriation program, with 2,000 enrolled so far.
Poland reestablished border controls with Germany and Lithuania
The reinstated controls will target buses, cars with a large number of passengers, minibuses and vehicles with tinted windows. The checks will last for an initial period of 30 days, although the Polish government does not exclude the extension of such measures. “We remain advocates for freedom of movement in Europe, but the condition is the shared will of all neighbours, symmetrical and united action, to minimise the uncontrolled flow of migrants across our borders,” Tusk said.
Italian Constitutional Court upholds contested migration decree despite humanitarian concerns
Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled that the administrative detention of NGO rescue ships is constitutional. This ruling has reaffirmed the legality of the strict measures to regulate migrant rescue operations, imposed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The case was brought by SOS Méditerranée after its vessel was detained in 2024 from supposedly failing to follow orders from the Italian authorities.
The vessel “Ocean Viking” had undertaken three rescue operations in the international waters off the Libyan coast, thus saving 261 lives. According to the Italian government, the ship was supposed to perform only one rescue before heading to the assigned port. Despite reinforcing the idea that saving lives at sea is a duty, the Court rejected the claims that the detention of the NGO ship violates the Constitution.
Instability risks of tighter borders and aid cuts
Director General of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Amy Pope, mentioned in an interview with the Associated Press that an approach not addressing the causes of migration and focusing only on border enforcement was “short-sighted” and risks further destabilising origin countries.
“It is short-sighted to cut foreign assistance without identifying alternatives to make sure that populations are not on the move”, Pope said. “If you want to manage irregular migration, then you need to make investments in stabilising populations closer to where the migration begins,” she added.
Migrants moved from Crete to Greek mainland
Over 500 people were transferred to the port of Lavrio near Athens from Crete, in the context of the emergency measures in Greece aimed at addressing a surge in Mediterranean crossings from Libya. The migrants were transferred overnight aboard a bulk carrier after their fishing trawler was intercepted by Greek authorities. The transfers to the mainland took place because reception centres in Crete have reached maximum capacity, with around 500 new arrivals per day.
Greece suspends asylum requests from African migrants
The Greek parliament approved the suspension for three months of asylum claims for migrants arriving by sea from Libya, regardless of criticism from the United Nations refugee agency.
The measures entail the suspension of processing asylum applications for people arriving by sea from North Africa, after a considerable increase in Mediterranean crossings that overwhelmed reception centres in Crete. The suspension passed by a vote of 177-74 despite the opposition from the left-wing parties, which challenged the amendment as unconstitutional.
Pilot scheme launched by the UK and France to deter Channel crossing
According to the scheme, France will accept the returned migrants in exchange of the UK taking in an equivalent number of asylum seekers with family ties in Britain. UK Prime Minister Keir Stramer hopes that this will signal a stricter stance on illegal migration.
Despite its limited scope, the UK officials see the deal as a breakthrough which sets a precedent for allowing migrants arriving illegally to be sent back across the Channel. The plan is expected to be launched in a few weeks, and is designed to deter dangerous crossings, which have become a strong political issue in the UK.
Updated CJEU case-law and AG opinions on asylum and migration matters
The Court ruled in Case C-460/23 (Kinsa) regarding a third-country national entering the EU irregularly accompanied by two minors. Using false documents, the woman entered at the airport border of Bologna with her daughter and niece, over whom she had actual care after the death of the niece’s mother. The Court held that their conduct “cannot be regarded as aiding or abetting illegal immigration”. It further stated that this conduct does not represent facilitation of illegal immigration which the EU law aims to combat, but rather “the exercise by that person of his or her responsibility stemming from the family relationship and the actual care over those minors”.
Furthermore, in Case C-662/23 (Zimir) the Court specified the conditions under which the extension of the six-month period for an asylum application can be applied. The Court highlighted that the six-month period referred to in the Procedures Directive may be extended by nine moths when there is a significant increase in the number of applications within a short period in comparison with the normal trend in the Member State in question. This excludes a gradual increase in applications over an extended period of time. Moreover, an extension cannot result from other circumstances, such as a considerable backlog of applications or insufficient personnel at the determining authority.
With regard to Case C‑610/23 (Al Nasiria) the Court ruled on the obligation to appear in person before the authority examining the appeal of an application lodged for international protection. The Court ruled that if an asylum applicant does not appear in person for their appeal hearing, and the purpose of the obligation to appeal is to confirm their presence in the country rather than to be heard, the appeal can be considered as improperly filed. Therefore, it can be dismissed as clearly unfounded.
Interestingly, in Case C-679/23 P (WS e.a. v Frontex) Advocate General Ćapeta found that the General Court erred in its assessment of the causal link in an action for damages brought by a Syrian family against Frontex. The family claimed that their return was illegal and that Frontex breached their fundamental rights by not examining whether a return decision relating to them existed. The General Court dismissed this action based on the lack of a causal link between the alleged conduct of Frontex and the damage suffered. It held that Frontex could not be held liable for the damage related to the family’s return, since Frontex does not have the power to assess the merits of return decisions.
Advocate General Ćapeta found however that Frontex does have an obligation to check if a return decision exists regarding to all persons covered by a joint return operation. This is important to ensure respect for the principle of non-refoulement and the performance of its tasks. In light of this, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta proposed that the Court of Justice should set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court.
ECtHR decisions:
In case S.S. and Others v. Italy (App. No. 21660/18) the ECtHR found that Italy could not be held liable for the actions of the Libyan Coast Guard, thus declaring inadmissible the application in this case concerning a 2017 shipwreck off the Libyan coast that led to 20 deaths. The court in Strasbourg found that Italy did not have “effective control” of the expanse of waters off the cost of Tripoli, where the ship carrying around 150 sank. Italy has however supplied the Libyans with funding, vessels and training, which were part of an agreement to minimise the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. Despite this support, the judges found that it did not prove that “Italy had taken over Libya’s public-authority powers.”
In H.Q and Others v. Hungary (Applications nos. 46084/21, 40185/22 and 53952/22) the Court found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention (Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens), Article 3 (Prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy). The case concerned the removal of the three applicants from Hungary to Serbia and their lack of effective access to the international protection procedure, which could be initiated only after a positive outcome of a preliminary procedure at the Hungarian embassy in Belgrade (“the embassy procedure”). The Court found that the “embassy procedure” did not provide for “genuine and effective access to means of legal entry”. Furthermore, it emphasized that the respondent State failed to examine whether the applicants would have access to an adequate asylum procedure in Serbia, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.
Furthermore, in Case of Y.K v. Croatia (Application no. 38776/21) the Court found a violation of the procedural part of Article 3 of the Convention, as well as of Article 13 read in conjuction with Article 3 of the Convention. The case concerns a complaint about the Croatian authorities’ alleged repeated refusals to allow a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity to access the international protection procedure, as well as the lack of an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal. The Court found that the domestic authorities took advantage of the applicant’s vulnerable situation to make him consent to voluntary return, and that the applicant’s departure to North Macedonia via Serbia was not voluntary. It further emphasized that there was no examination of the safety of the applicant, his access to effective and adequate asylum procedures or whether he would be exposed to the risk of chain refoulement or trearment prohibited by article 3.
