• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece A study The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece A study 2 | The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece | 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was written by Aspasia Papadopoulou at the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) with substantial contributions from Elisa Maimone (CIR), Vicky Tsipoura (GCR) and Katerina Drakopoulou (GCR). Special thanks to Kris Pollet and Minos Mouzourakis (ECRE), Daniela di Rado and Maria de Donato (CIR), Sandy Protogerou and Alexandros Konstantinou (GCR), Berend Jonker, Lenny Reesink and Nelleke Koffeman (Dutch Council for Refugees) and Karl Kopp (ProAsyl) for reviewing different versions of the draft, and to Allan Leas for the final review. We would like to thank all the persons we interviewed for their time and information provided, namely in Italy: the directors of the managing body of the centres in Trapani, Villa Sikania, Castelnuovo di Porto, and Ponte Galeria, medical and legal staff in Castelnuovo di Porto, the Prefecture of Trapani, the Ministry of Interior, Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration, EASO, Frontex, UNHCR, Medecins sans Frontieres, IOM, Mediterranean Hope, and Save the Children. In Greece, the Greek Asylum Service, Reception and Identification Service, the Ministry of Interior, the Police, the Hellenic Coast Guard, the Hellenic Army, the municipalities of Lesvos and Chios, the Public Prosecutor of Chios, EASO, Frontex, Europol, UNHCR, MetaAction, Praksis, Save the Children, Medecins sans Frontieres, Medecins du Monde, the Hellenic Red Cross, the Greek Council for Refugees and ProAsyl lawyers and volunteers. The study is part of a project led by the Dutch Council for Refugees, in partnership with ECRE, the Italian Council for Refugees (CIR), the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) and ProAsyl that aims to support monitoring of hotspots in Greece and Italy and the strengthening of legal assistance provision by local NGOs. ABBREVIATIONS AS Asylum Service in Greece | Υπηρεσία Ασύλου σσσσσ CARA Centre for the Reception of Asylum Seekers | Centro di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo CAS Emergency Accommodation Centre | Centro di accoglienza straordinaria CIE Identification and Expulsion Centre | Centro di identificazione ed espulsione CPSA First Aid and Reception Centre | Centro di primo soccorso e accoglienza CPA First Reception Centre | Centro di prima accoglienza CTRPI (or Territorial Commission) Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection | Commissione territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale EASO European Asylum Support Office EBCG European Border and Coast Guard EUAA European Union Asylum Agency EURTF EU Regional Task Force FRA Fundamental Rights Agency FRS/RIS First Reception Service/ Reception and Identification Service | Πρώτης Υποδοχής/ Υπηρεσία Υποδοχής και Ταυτοποίησης MOI Ministry of Interior in Italy Questura Immigration Office of the Police RAO Regional Asylum Office in Greece | Περιφερειακό Γραφείο Ασύλου SOP Standard Operating Procedures SPRAR System of Protection for Asylum Seekers and Refugees | Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati STC Safe third country UAM Unaccompanied minors 4 | The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece | 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary 7 The “hotspot approach” has been envisaged as a model of operational support by the EU agencies to Member States faced with disproportionate migratory pressure, with the aim to help them swiftly identify, register and fingerprint migrants, support the Chapter 1 : Introduction 8 implementation of relocation and returns. Chapter 2 : The hotspots: key findings from Greece and Italy 10 One year since the first hotspots were set up, and half a year since the entry into force of the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016, this study analyses the legal framework and practices developed in Italy and Greece, the role of the different actors involved and the Chapter 3: The hotspots in Italy 16 challenges that have emerged. The key question throughout the study is whether and how implementation is in line with EU asylum law 3.1 The legal framework for the functioning of hotspots 16 and legal standards and whether it ensures that the fundamental rights of the migrants and refugees are respected. 3.2 Hotspots function and procedures 19 From disembarkation to registration 19 The hotspots, as implemented today, are a pilot model of a more permanent registration and identification mechanism at the points of At the port 20 arrival that selects between those seeking asylum and those to be returned. Yet, the hotspots currently apply certain practices and Pre-identification 21 standards that are either inadequate or contrary to the EU asylum and immigration acquis. As this is a hybrid EU-Member States tool, Registration and Identification 23 responsibility for human rights protection and safeguards relates to both levels. 3.3 Access to the asylum procedure 24 3.4 Reception conditions in the hotspots 26 In terms of accessing the asylum procedure, the research shows that, while for some individuals this may have been the case, for many 3.5 Relocation 28 others it was not; many newly arrived migrants have been trapped in prolonged detention without access to asylum, have not received the Registration of the relocation application 28 right information in order to do so, or have been swiftly returned as a result of the hotspots approach. Processing the relocation application 29 Pre-departure information 29 The hotspots have certainly not helped in relieving the pressure from Italy and Greece as was their stated objective: instead, they have 3.6 Returns 30 led to an increase in the number of asylum applicants waiting in Italy and Greece, consolidating the challenges and shortcomings already inherent in the Dublin system. The hotspots approach has also led to more repressive measures, often disrespecting fundamental rights, Chapter 4: The hotspots in Greece 34 which are applied by national authorities as a result of EU pressure to control the arrivals; yet despite EU pressure, it is the Member States 4.1 The legal framework for the functioning of hotspots 35 that are held ultimately responsible for this implementation. The implementation of the EU-Turkey deal is a prime example of this EU 4.2 Hotspots function and procedures 39 pressure shifting responsibilities to the national level. From disembarkation to registration 39 Registration and Identification 39 The implementation of the hotspots approach should be understood in relation to the broader reform of the CEAS, and an overarching 4.3 Access to the asylum procedure 41 strategy to end irregular migration flows into the EU. The aim of the study is to contribute to current debates, by highlighting the Admissibility interview 42 challenges that emerge through the function of the hotspots at national level, the role of EU agencies and the level of EU responsibility in Provision of information and legal aid 43 the absence of an EU mechanism for responsibility sharing. Ultimately, if the hotspots are to be consolidated as a permanent referral 4.4 Reception conditions in the hotspots 44 mechanism and the points of entry, a number of elements need to be in place to ensure that this is compatible with the EU acquis and legal 4.5 Relocation 46 standards. 4.6 Returns 47 Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations 50 6 | The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece | 7 The implementation of hotspots includes an important element of 1. Introduction ‘joint processing of asylum applications’ through a pooling of national and EU agency resources. A number of conclusions can be drawn from this experience which are related to the discussions on Almost one year has passed since the first hotspots were With regards to Greece, the procedures and functioning of the the future functioning of the EU Asylum Agency (EUAA) and the established in Greece and Italy. Much has happened in hotspot have changed since the EU–Turkey statement of 20 March; European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG), the revision of the this one year in response to the unprecedented migratory the date is considered a cut-off date by all actors on the ground, Dublin Regulation (DRIV) and the Regulation establishing a flows that Europe was witnessing, all of which has been and is also a cut-off date for the purpose of the research; all common procedure for international protection and the envisaged cumulatively strengthening migration controls: starting information refers to the situation after the 20th of March. increased use of fast track inadmissibility and border procedures. with the October Leaders’ Meeting on the Western Balkans The asylum package proposed by the Commission in May and July Route, Member States have gradually closed internal Chapter 2 provides a summary of the study’s main findings from 2016 strengthens and consolidates the hotspot model as the borders and eventually blocked the Balkan route, leading the two countries with challenges and recommendations on the method of registration and identification of asylum seekers to a humanitarian disaster of 60,000 stranded refugees functioning of the hotspots. These are examined in relation to the arriving at the EU’s external borders. However, the study in Greece; the EU-Turkey Statement has set the frame to hotspots’

Load more

  29

Copy Link