Discussions on the solidarity mechanism of the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR, ex-Dublin), which were restarted on 16 September by the Czech Presidency of the EU Council, will continue on 4 October with a meeting of the SCIFA (Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum), before the EU interior ministers take it up the matter on 14 October in Luxembourg.
Seen by EUROPE, a provisional note from the Czech Presidency of the EU Council, entitled “Way forward on EU migration solidarity and crisis mechanism response”, already provoked strong reactions on 16 September, according to several sources who reported negative reactions from the so-called Visegrád countries (Hungary, Poland and Slovakia).
The Med5 countries (Italy, Cyprus, Spain, Malta and Greece) are reported to not be happy either, deploring in particular the fact that the voluntary aspect of relocations, as outlined in the ‘declaration of solidarity’, is confirmed in black and white.
On the basis of the Commission’s proposal for a regulation, the Czech Presidency has developed ways of organising Member States’ response to migratory flows into the EU, particularly those that are sudden and massive, and ‘legalising’ the declaration of solidarity introduced by the French Presidency of the EU Council in the first half of the year, which was essentially voluntary.
The solidarity mechanism would be based, as in the original regulation, on an annual report on migration management presented at the end of the year by the Commission.
This report would be intended to identify trends in terms of the arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers, landings of people rescued at sea or secondary movements.
On the basis of these assessments, an estimate of commitments and needs would be provided by the Commission for the coming year.
Member States could express their willingness to show solidarity or their specific needs, and the Commission would make recommendations to them to exercise this solidarity, including with quantified commitments. These recommendations would not be public.
More ‘return partnerships’.
Once a year, EU ministers would meet in the Home Affairs Council, probably at the end of the year, to implement these commitments. They would then contribute to an ‘annual solidarity pool’ based on an offer to relocate people seeking international protection or already in possession of international protection, a financial contribution by Member States to countries under pressure or on alternative help consisting of sending staff to help with processing asylum requests or return procedures.
This numerical response of solidarity would apply to all situations: migratory pressure, crisis situations or landings of people rescued at sea.
It should be noted that this document does not mention at any point ‘return partnerships’, which the Commission considers to be the alternative to relocation.
The document also addresses the more sensitive issue of the crisis mechanism for a country suddenly faced with an influx of people or under constant pressure. This country could ask the Commission for specific help, but it is the Commission that would assess the reality of the pressure experienced by the Member State on the basis of certain criteria, which would not necessarily please so-called ‘frontline’ countries, who fear facing a new challenge with the definition of these influx situations.
A ‘solidarity response plan’ would then be agreed and quickly proposed to the EU Council, with Member States again able to choose their form of assistance.
An amendment would also be added to the AMMR to deal with major crisis situations and instrumentalisation.
Qualified majority rather than consensus
According to several sources, the Czech Presidency’s text needs to change, as it has caused a lot of upset. Southern EU countries would like to see a clear percentage of relocations set and they will apparently ask for details on how the Commission will enforce relocation promises.
In any case, the Czech Presidency is reported to be of the opinion that from now on qualified majority voting should be used instead of consensus, as it has been so far. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)