23 October 2024
Getting a Grip on Migration but Mind European Law!
On September 13, the new Dutch government led by Dick Schoof outlined its programme for the next years. Unsurprisingly, a major point of this programme regards asylum and migration, for which the greatest ambition is to install the strictest regime ever and to include the Netherlands within the category of Member States of the European Union with the strictest admission rules. This post reviews these proposals through the lens of European Law to challenge their legal feasibility and flag the potential incompatibility with Dutch obligations stemming from EU and international law. Continue reading >>
0 
23 October 2024
Why Offshore Processing of Asylum Applications is Actually Racist
With the Rwanda scheme, the UK government unleashes a regime of offshore asylum processing which is being considered by countries around the world. Such schemes though may be considered racist for their obvious neocolonial implications of removing and returning asylum seekers and refugees from the global north to the global south. More importantly though, such schemes undermine the commitment to abide by international human rights law and the obligations which attach to states in a particular rather than vicarious sense. Continue reading >>
0
23 May 2024
Nigeria as a Safe Country of Origin?
On May 7th 2024 Italy updated its list of safe countries of origin (SCO) for the second time after the introduction of the notion in the national legal system in 2019. Notably, the latest update retained the most contentious addition to the list from last year, Nigeria. Until then, only Cyprus considered Nigeria as generally safe. The legal issues underlying this designation illustrate how country of origin information (COI), largely provided to Member States by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), is (mis)used to produce policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policies. Continue reading >>
0
17 January 2024
Rule of Law Abnegated
This year is the second winter that thousands of asylum seekers will spend on the cold streets of Brussels. More than 2700 of them are still without any material assistance and shelter. 869 of them have a domestic court order recognising their right to reception, yet the Belgian government has consistently refused to implement them. This deliberate refusal to secure the human rights of migrants, especially where these are single males, is not only creating a humanitarian disaster in Belgium’s streets but also undermines the raison d’être of Belgian democracy. While the government’s actions have been condemned by human rights experts and courts alike, we argue it is arguably reflective of a worrying wider trend in the EU of the impotence of the law to secure human rights for migrants. Continue reading >>
0
20 December 2023
Between Return and Protection
Last month, the ECJ responded to a preliminary reference of the Regional Court in Brno concerning Czechia’s so-called return procedure. The ECJ ruled that a third country national cannot be subject to a return decision if they applied for international protection and a first-instance decision on that application has not yet been delivered. Curiously, the ECJ thereby answered a question it had not actually been asked, while contradicting the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (“SAC”), rendered shortly before. While the ECJ’s ruling will nonetheless improve some of the problems that have inhered within Czechia’s approach to international protection and return procedures, its failure to answer the referred question constitutes a missed opportunity to facilitate a productive dialogue with referring courts in an area of law where preliminary references have been exceedingly rare. Continue reading >>
0
14 November 2023
Offshoring Asylum the Italian Way
On 6 November 2023, the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the Prime Minister of Albania Edi Rama announced the signing of the Agreement for Strengthening of Collaboration in the Field of Migration. The agreement proposes a relocation of asylum seekers who are rescued at sea by Italian vessels to two centres that would be built in Albania and could host up to 3’000 people. This is part of a broader trend whereby European governments seek to move asylum procedures outside of their territory. At the same time, the agreement contains some innovations compared to previous proposals. Indeed, this move has been hailed as a “model and example for other collaboration agreements of this kind” by the Italian Prime Minister. This article contends that this is unlikely to be the case: the legality and feasibility of offshoring asylum procedures remain dubious at best. Continue reading >>27 October 2023
Turning the Exception into the Rule
In January 2023, Italy’s new government adopted a reform that heavily curtailed immigrant rights to speed up return procedures. Between September and October, several judgments issued by the Catania Tribunal declared the reform in violation of EU law. The judgments led to backlash, with PM Meloni and other members of the government accusing them of being politically motivated. While such political attacks on judges must always be condemned, they are particularly unwarranted given that the Catania Tribunal’s judges were correct in finding the new Italian border procedures incompatible with EU law. Continue reading >>21 September 2023
Migrant Instrumentalisation: Facts and Fictions
The last two years have seen recurring efforts to introduce the concept of instrumentalisation of migration into EU asylum law on a permanent basis. This post will demonstrate why the ‘instrumentalisation of migration’ is an overly simplified and generalised term that does not capture the complexities of the situation on the ground. Its adoption into EU asylum law thus threatens both to undermine legal certainty and bear far-reaching consequences for the Rule of Law in the EU. Continue reading >>12 May 2023
Trading Rights for Responsibility
The newly published compromise text of the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) suggests to render border procedures mandatory in some cases, while also permitting first-entry states to derogate from them once their “adequate capacity” is reached. This adaptable approach to the use of border procedures seeks to resolve a long-standing disagreement between central EU countries and first-entry states. While the former consider the obligatory use of border procedures necessary to prevent onwards or ‘secondary’ movement of asylum-seekers, southern EU states argue that their mandatory use would place a further strain on their resources and overburden their capacities for processing asylum claims. This blogpost first explains the problems with border procedures, reviews their role in increasing responsibility of first-entry states, and explains why the new compromise Draft is unlikely to resolve the disagreement between first-entry states and other Members States. Continue reading >>
0
28 February 2023
“Like Handing My Whole Life Over”
On 16 February 2023, the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) ruled that the practice of regularly analysing data carriers, including mobile phones, by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) when registering asylum applicants is illegal (BVerwG 1 C 19.21). The judgement arrives after the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte’s (GFF) efforts to reveal this practice’s details and take legal action against its use in the asylum procedure. In this post, we briefly overview this practice and analyse this judgement and its implications. We argue that although this judgement represents an important victory for asylum seekers’ and refugees’ data protection and privacy, some controversial aspects of this practice still require clarification. Continue reading >>
0