7 mei 2025
In the first migration update for 2025, the Meijers Committee provides an overview of recent developments in the field of migration and asylum in the EU from February to April 2025. Among other things, the update discusses: the Proposal for a Returns Regulation, Greece’s classification of Türkiye as a “safe third country” and other national developments, the developments of the Italy-Albania deal, Europol’s new agreement with Egypt, and lastly new CJEU and ECtHR case law.
Commission planning overhaul of funding to Tunisia following abuse revelations
In response to the revelations of abuses committed by EU-funded security forces, the European Commission is planning to overhaul its funding to Tunisia. Following reports that Tunisian security forces committed acts of violence against people on the move in the country, the EC officials established concrete conditions to ensure that future funding to Tunisia will only go forward if human rights have not been violated. The EC spokesperson has defined this change as a ‘re-dynamisation’ of the EU’s partnership with Tunisia.
Only ‘potential risks’ of EU-funded projects reported in Libya rather than actual violations
The EC stated that a contractor responsible for rights monitoring in Libya only reports on ‘the potential risks of EU funded projects violating the ‘do no harm’ principle rather than any actual violations. Despite the fact that the contractor’s reports only focus on ‘potential risks’, this does not prove that EU-funded equipment is being used in a way that violates the ‘do no harm’ principle. However, it raises certain concerns about the extent to which the EC is informed on the issue. This was also mirrored in the report of the European Court of Auditors on the implementation of the EU Trust Fund for Africa. The ECA concluded that the Commission staff does not have in-depth knowledge of the activities funded by the EUTF in Libya and cannot assess if EU funded equipment is being used according to the ‘do no harm’ principle.
Digital and migrant rights groups call for the ‘full rejection’ of anti-smuggling power
A position paper published by #ProtectnotSurveil coalition stated that the approach adopted by the EU will not provide the care and protection people need, but rather only aggravate the criminalisation and dehumanisation of people on the move. The paper analyses the proposal that updates the criminal penalties for migrant smuggling and the new rules that would increase the powers of Europol. It argues that the Commission operates on the unproved assumption that large-scale data processing and broader police powers will protect migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers from ‘smugglers’. In turn, the result would be a law that creates more harm and discrimination for migrants and humanitarian actors, while failing to counter the business model of organised smuggling networks.
Internal EU report reveals that Italian police mislead people about Schengen entry ban
The Italian police are providing misleading information to people asking whether they are banned from entering the Schengen area. This information was revealed following an internal EU report obtained by Statewatch. Recommendations to the country by representatives of Member States reference Italy’s practices. According to data protection law, people have the right to request access to information stored by government authorities about them. However, if they consider it necessary to protect public or national security, states can refuse the access. Regarding entry bans, the Italian authorities issue a standard response to any request. The draft document states that this practice is considered as misleading in cases where no information is provided about the alert to the data subject in question.
Proposal for an EU Return Regulation
On 11 March 2025 the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the UE, also known as the Return Regulation.
The proposal provides for a legal basis for the member states to set up ‘return hubs’ if they reach an agreement with a third country. Furthermore, it introduces a new ‘European Return Order’ and the mutual recognition of the return decisions of member states. It will be optional until 2027, and after that it will become mandatory. The proposal also limits the options for voluntary return and extends the grounds for detention, while also introducing new grounds and extended duration for entry bans. With regard to appeal rights, the suspensive effect of appeal is not automatic, entailing that individuals may be removed from the EU before a decision on their appeal is taken.
Overall, the measures introduced by the proposal could significantly impact the rights of third-country nationals and raise concerns about their access to effective legal remedy. The Meijers Committee has published a comment on the proposal, providing concrete recommendations to improve the legislation. The proposal will now enter the legislative process in the Council and the European Parliament.
Report by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) reveals serious issues in asylum accommodation centres
The report covers inspection of centres managed by the International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS) and found that more than a third lacked policies to protect residents from harm, did not have an effective government system and part of the staff was not properly vetted by the police. The report stated that there is considerable room for improvement and called for urgent action.
Controversial asylum law entered in force in Poland
The law was signed by Polish President Andrezj Duda on the 26 March. The law will allow Poland to suspend temporarily the rights of people who enter the country irregularly via the border with Belarus to apply for asylum. Duda considers the law as ‘necessary for strengthening the security’ of the Polish borders. He further encouraged Prime Minister Donald Tusk to ‘take active measures in the matter of Poland’s security’.
Austrian government planning to suspend family reunification for people seeking asylum
The measure was announced on 12 March by Chancellor Christian Stocker, who mentioned that it was necessary to prevent ‘further overloading’ of Austria’s social services. He further stated that the measure would only be temporary and that integrating people who are already in the country will become a priority. The proposal was approved by the Council of Ministers on 26 March, but critics have questioned the legality of the measure. If approved, the measure could last until September 2026. As of now, the proposal will be sent to the parliament.
Tighter controls at Latvia’s borders
Starting with 19 March, the entry into Latvia via three checkpoints – one on the border with Belarus and two on the border with Russia – has been restricted to prevent pedestrians and cyclists to cross until further notice. The Latvian government justifies this decision based on security and public order issues, such as the risk of hybrid threats and migration crisis.
Accusations of pushbacks in Lithuania
Lithuanian border guards have received accusations of a pushback on the country’s border with Belarus. According to the NGO Sienos Grupe, officials from the State Border Guard Service ordered a group of people arriving from Kenya and Sudan at the Medininkai checkpoint to return to Belarus, despite their intention to apply for asylum. An audio recording shared with Sienos Grupe appears to confirm the pushback claim.
Sever budget cuts led to the suspension of programmes in Egypt by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)
The absence of available funds and uncertainty regarding donor contributions this year led to UNCHR suspending all medical treatment for refugee in Egypt, with the exception of emergency life-savings procedures. Despite the EU signing a 7.4-billion-euro agreement with Egypt in March 2024, which included 200 million euros for migration management, it is rather unlikely that they will be used to fill the gap provoked by the suspension of aid from the US.
The EPP takes firmer line on migration in policy pitch – New position paper
The European People’s Party (EPP) group has adopted a new position paper under the title “Harnessing Migration: A Firm, Fair, and Future-Oriented Approach”. The action plan highlights the group’s stance, emphasizing migrant return hubs, a stronger role for Frontex and the need to tighten the criteria for family reunification.
The position paper also includes a pitch for the use of EU funds to finance ‘physical infrastructure’ at the external borders of the EU. It further points out that the EU should ‘shift the paradigm forward, from border security to border defence.’
The EPP further emphasizes the need for improving the capacity of Frontex and the importance of partnerships with third countries, as this would stem irregular migration by encouraging them to prevent departures and implementing effective means for the readmission of nationals. According to the paper, the lack of cooperation with the EU should lead to a loss of European funds or visas. Furthermore, with regard to the reintroduction of checks at their border with other EU countries to prevent the ‘secondary movements’ of migrants, the EPP paper recognises the right of member states to reintroduce temporary internal border controls as a last-resort measure
Frontex investigates Greece over alleged migrant rights violations
The EU border agency it is investigating multiple alleged human rights violations be Greece regarding the way that it handles illegal migration. Following a migrant boat sinking in 2023 that killed hundreds, Greece has been subjected to more international criticism from human rights groups. The spokesperson of Frontex, Chris Borowski confirmed that the agency had recently improved its complaint mechanism. According to him, “there are currently 12 active Serious Incident Reports related to Greece under review by the Fundamental Rights Office. Each is being examined thoroughly.” Nevertheless, no further details were given.
Greece reclassifies Türkiye as a ”safe third country” for asylum-seekers, despite recent Council of State ruling
A joint ministerial decision adopted by the Greek government on 9 April includes Türkiye in the national list of safe third countries, deeming it a safe third country for asylum applicants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia and Syria. This decision comes shortly after the Greek Council of State annulled the previous decision. According to the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, the decision allows for the immediate rejection and return of asylum applications of the individuals from the above-mentioned countries who have entered Greece illegally from Türkiye.
Rejected asylum-seekers in Italy relocated to the repurposed repatriation centres in Albania
On 11 April, a group of 40 people who had their asylum claims rejected in Italy were relocated to the repatriation centres in Albania. This was the first transfer after the adoption of the decree by the Italian government that allowed the use of the centres in Gjadër and Shëngjin as repatriation centres. This was despite the centres being initially aimed at detaining people intercepted in international waters in the Mediterranean during the processing of their asylum claims. Legal experts have disputed the legality of relocating people with rejected asylum claims to a place that is neither a transit country nor the country of origin.
The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement (Europol) has signed a working agreement with Egypt
According to the European Commission, the agreement aims to enhance law enforcement cooperation to fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling and organised crime. However, various NGOs argued that the co-operation raises questions with regard to human rights violations related to border control and forced deportations. Furthermore, before the signing of the agreement a coalition of NGOs expressed concerns about the risks of legitimising illegal practices by the Egyptian police in an open letter to the Commissioner for Home Affairs and Migration Magnus Brunner.
Updated CJEU case-law and AG opinions on asylum and migration matters
The Court ruled in Case C‑158/23 (Keren), concerning a beneficiary of international protection in the Netherlands fined €500 and ordered to repay a €10,000 loan for failing to pass a civic integration exam in time. The Court held that while Member States may require such exams, they must consider individual circumstances and cannot impose automatic or excessive fines. It also found that making refugees bear the full cost of integration programmes—even with the option of a loan—violates EU law, as it may hinder their effective integration.
Interestingly, Case C-753/23 (Krasiliva) concerned the interpretation of Articles 8 and 11 of Directive 2001/55/EC, related to temporary protection for displaced persons, specifically Ukrainian nationals. The case relates to A.N.’s application for a residence permit after applying in both Germany and the Czech Republic, which was deemed inadmissible due to her prior application. The Court ruled that Article 8(1) precludes Member States from refusing a residence permit to individuals who have applied in another state but not yet obtained it. This interpretation underscores the EU’s commitment to harmonized rights for temporary protection, particularly in light of the mass influx from Ukraine following the Russian invasion.
The Court also addressed a preliminary ruling in Case C-454/23 (K.A.M.) concerning the interpretation of Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of Directive 2011/95/EU on the revocation or refusal of refugee status based on national security concerns. The case involved K.A.M., whose application for refugee status was rejected by Cyprus due to perceived threats to state security. The Court clarified that past conduct prior to entry into the host state can be considered in assessing security risks. It affirmed that Member States have discretion in determining security threats, and the provisions of the Directive align with the Geneva Convention, maintaining their validity under EU law.
Moreover, Case C-217/23 (Laghman) addressed the eligibility for refugee status under Directive 2011/95/EU. The case involved A N, whose application for international protection was rejected by Austria due to his family’s involvement in a blood feud. The Court clarified that for an applicant to qualify as a member of a ‘particular social group,’ the group must be perceived as distinct by a significant portion of the surrounding society, not just by individual perpetrators. Additionally, threats of serious harm, including violence from family members, can warrant subsidiary protection, regardless of the actor’s identity.
Additionally, the Court addressed a preliminary ruling in Case C-283/24 (Barouk), regarding the interpretation of Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU and Article 47 of the Charter. The Court concluded that national courts must have the authority to order medical examinations for applicants seeking international protection when deemed necessary for a comprehensive assessment. This requirement aligns with the need for a full and ex nunc examination of applications, ensuring effective judicial protection. The ruling emphasizes the importance of considering medical evidence related to past persecution or serious harm in asylum cases, reinforcing the rights of applicants under EU law.
Furthermore, several AG opinions were published this month that assist in interpreting EU’s asylum framework and asylum rights. Joined Cases C636/23 (Al Hoceima) and C637/23 (Boghni) regarded the question as to whether third-country nationals can challenge the refusal of a voluntary departure period under Directive 2008/115/EC. In AG Spielmann’s opinion, they must have that right, as it affects their legal status. He also found that entry bans can be imposed later and that an unlawful refusal invalidates the entire return decision, reinforcing procedural safeguards under EU law.
AG Medina also gave an opinion on Case C‑610/23 (Al Nasiria), concerning a third-country national whose asylum appeal was dismissed for failing to appear in person at a hearing. Greek law presumes such absence means the appeal was improperly brought. Nonetheless, the AG found this rule disproportionate, especially for applicants facing financial hardship, and concluded it violates the right to an effective remedy under EU law, as it denies a fair assessment of the appeal’s merits.
In Case C-656/23 (Karaman), AG Norkus addressed the legal implications of refugee status recognition, and the effective date of residence permits under EU law. While Member States must issue residence permits promptly after granting refugee status, these permits typically take effect from the date of issue, not retroactively from the application date. The Opinion emphasizes the declaratory nature of refugee status as outlined in the Qualification Directive, asserting that national laws allowing retroactive effect do not contravene EU Directives. The case highlights ongoing issues with application processing delays, underscoring the need for timely access to rights associated with refugee status.
AG Norkus gave his opinion on Case C‑136/24 P (Hamoudi v Frontex), involving a Syrian national allegedly pushed back by Greek authorities with Frontex’s involvement. He argued that when prima facie evidence is presented, the burden of proof may shift, as strict requirements risk undermining rights like asylum and protection from collective expulsion.
In Case C-97/24 (S.A., R.J. v The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth), AG Medina addressed the liability of Irish authorities for failing to provide adequate material reception conditions to two asylum seekers, who experienced homelessness for 71 and 64 days, respectively. The case examines whether force majeure can exempt Member States from liability under Directive 2013/33/EU during a massive influx of refugees, which saw nearly 100,000 applicants in Ireland. While the Irish authorities acknowledge a breach of obligations, they argue it was due to force majeure. The Opinion suggests that while force majeure may apply temporarily, it cannot justify violations of fundamental rights, particularly human dignity, thus emphasizing the non-derogable nature of basic needs under EU law.
In case C-454/23 (K.A.M v. Cyprus) the Court examined the concept of danger to the security of the state providing protection as a basis to refuse or revoke refugee status where certain acts of conduct took place prior to entering the host state. The Court ruled that, where there are reasonable grounds to regard the refugee as a danger to the security of that member state on the basis of acts or conduct prior to entering its territory, a member state may revoke refugee status or decide not to grant it under Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of the recast Qualification Directive. Furthermore, it emphasized that it is not relevant whether such acts or conduct represent grounds for exclusion and underlined that it is not necessary to refer to the conditions applicable to the concept of ‘danger to the security of the country’ of Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention.
New decisions of the ECtHR in regard to asylum seekers and treatment
In the case A.R.E. v. Greece (Application No. 15783/21), the ECtHR found multiple violations of the Convention, including Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) due to the expulsion of the applicant to Türkiye without assessing the risk of mistreatment. The Court noted the lack of effective remedies (Article 13) and highlighted the applicant’s credible fears of persecution linked to her alleged affiliation with the FETÖ organization. The Greek authorities denied involvement in illegal pushbacks, yet evidence from various reports indicated systematic violations of asylum seekers’ rights at the Evros border. The Court emphasized the need for Greece to uphold its obligations under international law regarding non-refoulement and the protection of asylum seekers.
In Kunshugarov v. Türkiye (Applications nos. 60811/15 and 54512/17), the Court found violations of Articles 3 and 5 ECHR. It was determined that the Turkish authorities inadequately assessed the applicant’s claims of a real risk of ill-treatment upon extradition to Kazakhstan, particularly regarding the death penalty and degrading detention conditions. While Türkiye is not a Member State and thus these findings do not reflect the circumstances prominent in the EU’s asylum assessments, the country is still (controversially) considered by many Member States as a safe third country for asylum seekers. As such, this judgment is incredibly relevant in the context of returns and transfers for asylum consideration in third countries.
Moreover, in A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta (Application no. 2559/23), the Court ruled that Malta violated Article 3 by failing to conduct a rigorous risk assessment before expelling two Uighur Muslims to China, six years after their asylum claim was rejected. The Court found that the applicants had exhausted domestic remedies, as their previous asylum application and appeal were inadequate. The judgment emphasized that returning the applicants without a fresh assessment would breach their rights, given the documented risks of persecution against Uighurs in Xinjiang. The case highlights the procedural obligations of states under international law concerning non-refoulement.
In regard to another case against Greece, Almukhlas and Al-Maliki v. Greece (Application No. 22776/18), the Court found a procedural violation of Article 2 due to an ineffective investigation into the death of Ameer Mokhlas, a minor shot during a coast guard operation in 2015. The investigation failed to establish the circumstances of the death or identify responsible parties, leading to lost evidence. In its judgment, the Court noted that the coast guard did not adequately consider the presence of hidden migrants on the boat and employed excessive force without proper risk assessment. Thus, the judgment concluded that the operation lacked necessary safeguards to protect lives, emphasizing the need for thorough and independent inquiries in such incidents.
Lastly, in February the Court began a landmark series of hearings against Poland, Latvia and Lithuania over allegations of pushbacks to Belarus. How these cases will proceed remains to be seen.
