Although absent from the agenda of the informal meeting dedicated to Home Affairs in Dublin, on Thursday 16 July, the thorny issue of returning irregular migrants made its way into the margins of ministers’ discussions.
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, announced that, a few days earlier, he had sent a letter to the interior ministers of the five Member States (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands) involved in an informal group seeking to rapidly deploy these structures (see EUROPE 13792/16), expressing concern about “considerable risks” of harm to migrants’ fundamental rights.
To avoid any abuse, the Commissioner set out four safeguards. He first recommends that any initiative be preceded by a “comprehensive assessment” of the risks, together with a mitigation plan. He also advocates the establishment of “independent and continuous monitoring” making it possible to suspend cooperation in the event of a violation, and insists that these partnerships be based on “legally binding” agreements that incorporate enforceable human rights clauses, thus ruling out any informal arrangement.
Member States defend their project, but remain vague about its contours. In response, the countries concerned defended the “full compliance” of their approach with international and European law. Describing these centres as a “legitimate” policy tool, they argued that the ‘Return’ Regulation already provides for adequate “safeguards” and “monitoring mechanisms”.
This discussion comes even as the latest report by the Fundamental Rights Officer of Frontex points to serious and systematic failings in return procedures undertaken so far (see EUROPE 13911/4).
Despite several months of discussions on the issue, the countries being considered for these hubs are still not known. “We have agreed to remain silent”, the Austrian Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, justified on his arrival at the informal meeting on Thursday. Last month, he briefly mentioned ongoing bilateral exchanges with Uzbekistan (see EUROPE 13881/3).
Only one thing remains certain: the Member States rule out “countries on the EU’s borders” and favour “Asia or sub-Saharan Africa”, particularly regions close to the main countries of origin, Maciej Duszczyk, Undersecretary of State at the Polish Interior Ministry, recalled, adding that the Commission “has already started exchanges with several countries” on the matter.
Migration diplomacy. In the context of the discussions held in Dublin on European visa policy (see EUROPE 13911/1), ministers also agreed on the need to strengthen this lever to encourage third countries to cooperate on the readmission of their citizens staying irregularly - as provided for in Article 25a of the Visa Code.
It is in line with this approach that the EU Council recently restricted the issuing of visas for Somalia and Guinea, pointing to “insufficient” cooperation (see EUROPE 13896/7, 13907/23). Morocco was also reportedly mentioned during the meeting for possible sanctions of the same kind, according to a European official.
Moreover, in order no longer to depend exclusively on the ‘25a’ mechanism, the Member States are reportedly considering an overall legal framework that is “more flexible and more responsive”, according to the same source.
This ‘migration diplomacy’ already appears to be taking concrete shape. According to a note obtained by Agence Europe, on 6 July, the European Commission submitted to Member States a proposal for a decision aimed at approving a new readmission agreement with Nigeria, signed on 23 March in Abuja, after 10 years of political deadlock. The document states that the application of this agreement “will be assessed annually by the Commission” on the basis of Article 25a.
The latter thus aims to establish “rapid and effective procedures for identification and return” of persons staying irregularly in the EU. It includes joint commitments to “promote voluntary returns and facilitate the sustainable reintegration of returned persons in their country of origin”.
Securing such a channel with one of the main countries of origin of migration to the EU could potentially facilitate the implementation of future return hubs - since these structures can function only if third countries of origin undertake a legally binding commitment to readmit their nationals once they have been transferred there. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)