The national ambassadors of the Member States to the EU continued their discussions, during the morning of Wednesday 9 February, on the external dimension of migration and the new mechanism for coordinating actions in this area, the MOCADEM (Operational Coordination Mechanism for the External Dimension of Migration).
They also prepared the agenda for the formal EU Council of the Ministers of Home Affairs of 3 March, which will include the Schengen Area, the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and sections on civil protection and climate change.
With regard to MOCADEM, the discussion on this particularly consensual topic allowed for further work on migration partnerships with a number of important third countries identified, going beyond the ‘returns’ dimension alone.
As far as the Home Affairs Council of the EU is concerned, only the agenda was discussed, according to one source, but at a forthcoming meeting, Coreper will return in more detail to the French Presidency’s step-by-step approach to the Pact on Migration and Asylum.
Possible areas of convergence in the Pact on Migration and Asylum
Concerning the Pact, according to a note dated 8 February, Paris considers that it has already made good progress on several parameters and states that areas of convergence are possible on aspects of external border controls (‘screening’), the new mechanism for the voluntary reception of asylum seekers as well as on the improved application of the Dublin 3 regulation or on returns and financial support for border protection actions.
On the elements of screening, discussions converged on checks at the external border including a health check, a vulnerability check, an identity check and a security check.
“These checks would apply to three categories of third country nationals not fulfilling the conditions of entry: those apprehended in connection with an unauthorized crossing of the external border, those disembarked following a SAR (search and rescue) operation, and those who have made an application for international protection at the external border crossing points or in transit zones”.
On the choice of locations for these checks, “sufficient flexibility should be left to Member States”, the note says. In principle, the screening should be carried out at locations situated at or near the external borders, but a Member State may use other locations within its territory.
As regards the legal status of the persons concerned at the external border, they would be considered as not having fulfilled entry conditions for the duration of the control process only.
To prevent the risk of absconding, a decision to refuse entry could be issued after the screening. The return could be carried out on the basis of derogations from the Returns Directive. The Presidency notes that this legal status will be strictly limited to 5 days (or 10 days in exceptional circumstances), thus corresponding to the duration assigned to the screening process.
On the sensitive subject of the detention of these persons or alternative means to avoid the risk of absconding, “flexibility should be left to the Member States as regards the choice of these measures. However, alternatives to detention must be sufficiently effective to achieve the objective of the screening and prevent absconding. House arrest and residence restrictions (open or semi-open facilities, notably with monitoring) would be preferable means”.
As far as the Eurodac regulation is concerned, the status of persons disembarked after SAR operations could be clearly indicated in Eurodac as a category and the data must be transmitted to the central system within 3 days (5 days in case of mass influx). Within this specific timeframe, and at any time, the Member States concerned may request the support of EU agencies, the note says.
Voluntary relocation for people rescued at sea
As regards the voluntary relocation mechanism, which is to be the counterpart of the ‘responsibility’ aspects and which requires “somewhat more in-depth discussions”, the document indicates that it should apply as a priority to persons rescued at sea (as provided for in the Valletta agreement in 2019) and to “asylum seekers not manifestly ineligible for international protection” (e.g.: applicants of a nationality for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is higher than 20%).
In addition, in order to be able to address specific situations of other Member States under pressure, in cases of mass influx manifestly exceeding the average number of asylum applications EU wide and the standard reception capacities, ad hoc voluntary programs of relocation could be implemented regarding asylums seekers not manifestly ineligible for international protection.
Alternative solidarity contributions from Member States not participating to the relocation mechanism should also be detailed in order to contribute to the costs related to the relocation mechanism (control procedures and accommodation systems, relocations). They could take the form of financial contributions (or other forms: human support, material support if this is matching frontline Member States’ needs) and be proportionate to each Member State.
A revision clause would apply to this mechanism, which would initially run for one year.
On the Dublin Regulation, the aim would be to intensify work on convergence “in order to prevent and remedy secondary movements”. A roadmap could be defined to enable Member States, on a bilateral basis, to establish administrative arrangements between themselves to shorten, for example, the time limits relating to transmission and the examination of requests to take charge of or take back applicants (the ‘Dubliners’ registered in a first Member State).
Link to the note: https://aeur.eu/f/9h (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)