{"id":3563,"date":"2021-12-22T16:10:41","date_gmt":"2021-12-22T15:10:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:10164\/?p=3563"},"modified":"2022-03-29T08:55:41","modified_gmt":"2022-03-29T06:55:41","slug":"eu-migration-law-update-december-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/eu-migration-law-update-december-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"EU Migration Law Update December 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

<\/span><\/h3>\n <\/div>\n
\n

New Pact on Migration and Asylum<\/p>\n

As noted in our previous Update, progress on the Migration Pact remains limited. The European Parliament published draft reports on the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) and the Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management (RAMM). In the draft on the APR, rapporteur Marquardt (Greens) has proposed to reinstall some procedural guarantees without altering the core of the Commission\u2019s proposals. In the draft on the RAMM, however, rapporteur Tob\u00e9 (EPP) made quite far-going proposals, which will considerably reduce protection standards and further increase the responsibilities of countries at the external borders. For instance, the report allows those subject to a Dublin transfer to be detained for 12 weeks (instead of 4 weeks), allows Member States to take any (unspecified) \u201cadditional
\nmeasures\u201d to prevent unauthorized movements, and removes the Commission\u2019s Proposal to extend the scope of family members to siblings. A further important amendment is made to the proposed solidarity mechanism, which no longer applies to arrivals after Search and Rescue Operations (SAR). ECRE has expressed its concerns on Tob\u00e9\u2019s report.<\/p>\n

Belarus<\/p>\n

In our previous Update, we discussed the situation at the EU-Belarussian border. At that time, Eastern European countries like Poland, Latvia and Lithuania had already declared a state of emergency, entailing, i.a., the legalization of pushbacks. In the previous months, the situation escalated dramatically. Consequently, it became a highly debated topic in the European
\nUnion.
\nLukashenko\u2019s regime has continued to facilitate the arrival of asylum seekers and their journey to the EU\u2019s external borders, even by allowing regular flights to transport people with a visa and then sending them into European territory. However, when Poland decided to deploy the army to curb irregular entries, the situation deteriorated: border violence increased, and a political crisis escalated.
\nAt the beginning of December, the Commission decided to intervene by proposing a Council decision on provisional emergency measures to support Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The Proposal follows from the triggering of Article 78(3) TFEU in response to the instrumentalization of migrants at the external border. It is presented as a response to a \u2018hybrid attack on the EU as a whole\u2019. 2 Article 78(3) TFEU allows for adopting provisional measures in emergency migratory situations at the EU’s external borders. The Proposal
\nenables Member States to identify specific registration points at the border where it is possible to lodge and register an application. Notably, it extends the limit to register an application to four weeks and allows the accelerated procedure at the border for all applications. The border procedure can be extended to up until 16 weeks. The extension will help the Member State apply the fiction of non-entry for a longer period of time, providing
\nmore flexibility to deal with the increased workload. Latvia, Lithuania and Poland would be allowed to disapply the suspensive effect of appeals in all border procedures. Moreover, the Proposal lowers the material reception conditions to cover only the basic needs. Finally, it allows the possibility provided for in the Return Directive to derogate from the procedure laid
\ndown therein.
\nThe Proposal has provoked mixed reactions. Some showed enthusiasm for the Commission proposal to try to move from the political deadlock. Others were sceptical regarding the efficacy of the measures proposed and the weakening of asylum rights3.
\nOn 14 December 2021, the Commission presented a more generalized proposal for a regulation addressing \u201csituations of instrumentalization in the field of migration and asylum\u201d. The proposed regulation allows for derogations from the general asylum acquis, lengthening registration periods, expanding and prolonging border procedures, limiting reception conditions and disapplying the standards of the Return Directive.<\/p>\n

Pushbacks<\/p>\n

In the past months, pushbacks at the Belarusian border have been under the spotlight, often disregarding the fact that this infamous practice is widespread all over the EU. Indeed, countries like Croatia, Greece and France have also been reported to conduct pushbacks.
\nCroatian police have been reported to use violence and mistreat those trying to cross the border from Bosnia4. This is, however, not a new issue, as thousands of migrants from Asia, the Middle East and North Africa have been stranded in Bosnia since 2018, when Croatian authorities started tightening the control at the borders. The Danish Refugee Council, which
\nmonitors borders as part of one of its protection programmes in Bosnia, recorded 30,309 pushbacks of migrants from Croatia from June 2019 to September 20215. Commissioner Ylva Johansson called for opening a national investigation, but NGOs like ECRE and Amnesty have pointed to the EU\u2019s inaction in the matter6. On 10 November, the Ombudsman opened an
\ninquiry on how the European Commission seeks to ensure the protection of fundamental rights in border management operations by Croatian authorities.
\nMoreover, pushbacks from Greece continue, as do reports of refoulement from Turkey. According to the Aegean Boat Report, 384 life rafts carrying 6,659 \u201cvictims of cruel and inhuman behaviour by the Greek government\u201d have been found adrift in the Aegean Sea since March 2020. Additionally, in consideration of the beatings by Turkish authorities, RSA and
\nECRE member Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) filed an appeal before the High
\nAdministrative Court against the Joint Ministerial Decision designating Turkey as a safe third
\ncountry for citizens of Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
\n3
\nIn this regard see for example https:\/\/www.euronews.com\/2021\/12\/01\/brussels-accused-of-weakening\u0002asylum-rights-to-deal-with-belarus-border-crisis
\n4 https:\/\/www.euractiv.com\/section\/enlargement\/news\/eu-can-play-dumb-as-long-as-it-wants-on-croatian\u0002border\u0002violence\/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9715&pnespid=tOJ4UCYXP6xA1.LduD29EI
\nvSpw2.VsR7ILHnyudjqB9mYN6ftIea5Z8bN4d9EYNuYazY1VlgQA
\n5 https:\/\/www.unhcr.org\/cgi-bin\/texis\/vtx\/refdaily?pass=52fc6fbd5&id=61691f103
\n6 https:\/\/ecre.org\/balkan-route-croatia-and-romania-deny-systemic-pushbacks-despite-overwhelming\u0002evidence-ngos-point-to-eu-complicity-and-urge-stronger-response-croatian-border-monitoring-toothless\/
\n3
\nRegarding France, journeys and interceptions through the Channel are an increasing concern.
\nIndeed, the UK authorities started to push back ships to France7
\n, and numerous boats were
\nbeing found in distress, and French authorities have intervened to rescue them.
\nPushbacks are not the only point of concern in EU return policies. Especially Dublin transfers
\nhave also become more controversial regarding Afghans to Member States like Bulgaria and
\nCroatia. Such countries have been suspected of returning Afghans to Afghanistan without
\nexamining the asylum application, establishing indirect refoulement.
\nFrontex
\nThe European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) has repeatedly been accused of
\nviolating fundamental rights and executing pushbacks. Recently, it has been sued before the
\nEU General Court for illegally deporting and violating the fundamental rights of a Syrian family.
\nThe family arrived in Greece in October 2016 and lodged an asylum application. Some days
\nafter, however, they were deported to Turkey without access to the procedure or official
\nexpulsion order. During the transfer, the children were separated from their parents and were
\nordered not to speak to each other. When in Turkey, the family was imprisoned, and after
\nbeing released, they fled the country to northern Iraq.
\nFrontex is accused of violating the principle of non-refoulement and breaching the right to
\napply for asylum. Specifically, the applicants claim that \u2018the gathered evidence establishes that
\n\u2018new tactics\u2019 in the context of border control operations in the Aegean Sea Region, introduced
\nin March 2020, amount to a State (Greece) and organizational (Frontex) policy of systematic
\nand widespread attack directed against civilian populations seeking asylum in the EU\u2019.
\nSecondly, allegedly Frontex has failed to fulfil its positive obligations under the Charter of
\nFundamental Rights concerning preventing foreseeable violations of fundamental rights
\noccurring in the Aegean Sea Region in the context of its operation. Finally, it is claimed that
\nFrontex\u2019s failure to act according to article 265 TFEU \u2018concerns the applicants directly and
\nindividually, as their situation has been prejudiced already multiple times by the new State
\nand organizational policy of systematic and widespread practices of either abduction from EU
\nsoil and forcible transfer back to sea, or interception at sea; abandonment at sea on unworthy
\nvessels causing serious risk to life; unlawful refoulement, collective expulsion, and prevention
\nof access to asylum\u20198
\n. Prakken D’Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers, defending the Syrian family,
\nstated that \u2018breach of fundamental rights of the European Union by an EU agency is seriously
\nundermining the values on which the Union is founded. We are therefore holding Frontex and
\nthe EU accountable and are urging them to restore the rule of law\u20199
\n.
\nAfter the submission of this case, the international campaign #notonourborderwatch, calling
\nfor an end to the violations of human rights at the European borders, was launched, supported
\nby the Dutch Council for Refugees, BKB, Sea-Watch Legal Aid Fund, Jungle Minds, and Prakken
\nD’Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers.
\nSchengen
\nIn our previous Update10, we discussed the Commission\u2019s new Schengen Strategy, as well as
\nthe Proposal for the revision of the Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism. In
\n7 https:\/\/www.thetimes.co.uk\/article\/channel-migrants-uk-poised-to-start-pushing-back-boats-next-week\u0002nf8fxvnhc
\n8
\nSS and ST v Frontex (Case T-282\/21) CJEU
\n9 https:\/\/www.prakkendoliveira.nl\/en\/news\/news-2021\/eu-agency-frontex-charged-with-illegal-pushbacks
\n10 EU Update 2021\/2, available here
\n4
\nOctober 2021, the Meijers Committee published its comments on that Proposal. In the most
\nrecent JHA Council (9-12 December 2021), Ministers assessed progress on that Proposal and
\ndecided to continue the discussion at a technical level within the Council. On 9 December
\n2021, French president Macron announced that during the French Council presidency, which
\nwill start in January 2022, the reform of the Schengen Zone would be among his top priorities.
\nOn 14 December 2021, the European Commission launched its proposals to amend the
\nSchengen Borders Code. Notably, the Proposal expands the possibilities of Member States to
\nreintroduce internal border controls and travel restrictions when faced with health
\nemergencies. It also establishes a new procedure for transferring persons apprehended in the
\nvicinity of an internal border in the EU to the Member States from which the person entered.
\nThis procedure enables Member States to immediately transfer a person, thus circumventing
\nthe Dublin procedure. The decision to refuse entry can be appealed, but the appeal has no
\nsuspensive effect and can therefore not stop the transfer. In this light, the Proposal also
\ncontains an amendment to the Return Directive, requiring the receiving Member State to issue
\na return decision to the transferred person. The Proposal further enables Member States,
\nwhen faced with the \u201cinstrumentalization of migrants\u201d, to limit the number of border crossing
\npoints and intensify border surveillance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1 Intern at the Meijers Committee.
\n2 European Commission, Proposal for a Council decision on provisional emergency measures for the benefit of
\nLatvia, Lithuania and Poland COM(2021) 752 final, available here.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[141],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-update-nl"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3563","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.commissie-meijers.nl\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}