The EU ministers responsible for home affairs and migration met, on Thursday 4 June, for the last ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ Council under the Cyprus Presidency. At the centre of the discussions were the technical deployment and outsourcing of the new European migration framework.
Final straight for the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’. Two years after its formal adoption and with just a few days to go before its implementation, set for 12 June, the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’ is sparking heated debate. In line with their previous statements, Magnus Brunner, the European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, and Nicholas Ioannides, the Cypriot Minister for Migration, were largely optimistic about the arrangements already in place, saying that “significant progress has been made” and that “most States are ready”.
The reality on the ground, however, reveals technical disparities, particularly with regard to the modernisation of IT systems, which is essential for the operation of Eurodac (the biometric fingerprint comparison system). In April, the Commission had already conceded a major degree of flexibility for the parallel deployment of the Entry/Exit System (EES), in response to calls from the air transport industry about the chronic shortage of staff and the technological backlog at internal borders. Member States were therefore permitted to partially suspend the collection of biometric data until next September in order to avoid paralysis of airport hubs in the run-up to the summer tourist peak (see EUROPE 13845/7).
When asked about this, Mr Brunner admitted that “several challenges remain” before the system is fully operational, but insisted that the date of 12 June “is not the finishing line, but the starting line” for national reforms.
Furthermore, the implementation of the Pact is inextricably linked to another burning issue: the maintenance of internal border controls by 10 Schengen countries. While the Commission recommends a gradual lifting of these barriers in view of the overall drop in illegal flows (see EUROPE 13879/5), several capitals oppose this, demanding that the new European system first prove its effectiveness. “We need to do things in the right order”, agreed Johan Forssell, Sweden’s Minister for Migration, noting that “major security problems persist” in Europe.
The Member States welcome the provisional agreement on the Return Regulation, and some are aiming for external partnerships “as early as this year”. Another major milestone at this Council was the political breakthrough on the Return Regulation, on which the ‘trilogue’ negotiations concluded at the beginning of the week (see EUROPE 13879/4). “This is a great success for the Presidency and for the EU as a whole”, said a delighted Mr Ioannides. “We expect this crucial legislation to make an effective contribution to increasing the return [of irregular migrants]”, he added. The same was true of the ministers who met in Luxembourg on Thursday, many of whom hailed a “huge reform” and an “important signal” that had been awaited “for a long time”.
In this context, Spain is an exception. Its minister, Fernando Grande-Marlaska Gómez, refused to endorse the text, denouncing measures that “violate the spirit of a common European policy on migration”. He particularly criticised the concept of ‘return hubs’ and the extension of detention periods to 24 months, which he described as “disproportionate”. “While the Pact represents a step forward for European migration policy, this new regulation goes in the opposite direction”, he deplored.
In line with the new text, the Council also agreed on the importance of externalising migration policy. Somalia was mentioned in particular, with an effective return rate of no more than 3%. At a press conference, Mr Brunner encouraged the EU to activate “negotiating levers” such as “visa policy, trade or development aid” to force the country to cooperate on readmission.
At the same time, the group of countries formed in January to make progress on “innovative solutions” (see EUROPE 13792/16) remains determined to make the return hubs a reality. “Our aim is to have specific dialogue partners or a concrete project by the end of the year so that we can move on to the implementation phase next year”, said Gerhard Karner, Austria’s Minister of the Interior.
While the identity of the third countries targeted remains unclear, Austria has mentioned recent rapprochement with Uzbekistan. For Mr Karner, Tashkent represents an “important partner in the region as Afghanistan’s neighbour”, a channel considered essential for organising future expulsions to Afghanistan. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)