The European Parliament confirmed on 27 March that it did not want European funds dedicated to migration or external border management to go to the European "controlled centres".
This concept was invented in June 2018 by European Heads of State or Government but without concrete translation to date (see EUROPE 12051/1). It should make it possible to keep migrants rescued at sea in certain European ports in order to control their profile and, possibly, to relocate them to other EU countries.
The Parliament confirmed the opinion of the Civil Liberties Committee in February and rejected two proposals for delegated acts discreetly presented by the Commission on 14 December, aimed at extending the remit of two funds, asylum and migration and external border management, to these "controlled centres" in the same way as other types of infrastructure for receiving asylum seekers or refugees.
For the Parliament, this amendment is not acceptable in that the "controlled centres" do not have a legal existence and are not provided for by European law. For the Parliament, the concept of "controlled centres" is a "controversial concept of dubious legality, which does not exist in EU law and has not been approved by the co-legislators".
It should therefore not be possible to finance this concept unless it is "properly defined in an appropriate legislative instrument, adopted by the co-legislators, detailing the legal basis, nature, purpose and objective of such a concept". The Parliament 'objected' to the proposal on the AMIF Fund (asylum, migration and integration) by 493 votes to 87 with 34 abstentions, and rejected by a show of hands the amendment of the Internal Security and External Border Management Fund.
After the multiple migrant disembarkation crises in Italian or Maltese ports in the summer of 2018, the Commission undertook to ensure coordination between Member States who volunteered to receive rescued migrants and indicated that this type of centre would be supported by the EU. But the discussion has no concrete expression and remains an informal reflection at Member State level, which they are now pursuing in their discussions on what is now called "temporary landing arrangements". (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)