/July-2019-Final-Report.pdf

  • Border Violence Monitoring Network - Report July 2019

    The Border Violence Monitoring Network just published a common report summarizing current developments in pushbacks and police violence in the Western Balkans, mainly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and along the Serbian borders with Croatia and Hungary.

    Due tu a new cooperation with the Thessaloniki-based organisation Mobile Info Team, we were also able to touch on the Status quo of pushbacks from and to Greece.

    This report analyzes, among other things:

    – BiH politicians’ rhetoric on Croatian push-backs
    – Whistleblowers increasing pressure on Croatian authorities
    – Frontex presence in Hungarian push-backs to Serbia
    – The use of k9 units in the apprehension of transit groups in Slovenia
    – The spatial dispersion of push-backs in the Una-Sana Canton

    Competing narratives around the legality of pushbacks have emerged, muddying the waters. This has become especially clear as Croatian president Grabar-Kitarovic admitted that pushbacks were carried out legally, which is contradictory to begin with, and that “of course […] a little violence is used.” Croatia’s tactic of de facto condoning illegal pushbacks is similar to Hungary’s strategy to legalize these operations domestically, even though they violate international and EU law. On the other side of the debate, a whistleblower from the Croatian police described a culture of secrecy and institutional hurdles, which prevent legal and organizational challenges to the practice. The role of the EU in this debate remains critical. However, despite paying lip service to the EU’s value, Brussels’ continues to shoulder the bill for a substantial part of the frontier states’ border operations.

    https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/July-2019-Final-Report.pdf

    #frontières #violence #push-back #refoulement #route_des_Balkans #Frontex #Subotica #Bosnie-Herzégovine #Croatie #Italie #Serbie #Hongrie #rapport

    • Croatia Is Abusing Migrants While the EU Turns a Blind Eye

      The evidence of Croatian police violence toward migrants is overwhelming, but Brussels continues to praise and fund Zagreb for patrolling the European Union’s longest external land border.

      BIHAC, Bosnia and Herzegovina—Cocooned in a mud-spattered blanket, thousands of euros in debt, and with a body battered and bruised, Faisal Abas has reached the end of the line, geographically and spiritually. A year after leaving Pakistan to seek greener pastures in Europe, his dreams have died in a rain-sodden landfill site in northern Bosnia. His latest violent expulsion from Croatia was the final straw.

      “We were just a few kilometers over the border when we were caught on the mountainside. They wore black uniforms and balaclavas and beat us one by one with steel sticks,” he recalled. “I dropped to the ground and they kicked me in the belly. Now, I can’t walk.”

      Faisal rolled up his trousers to reveal several purple bruises snaking up his shins and thighs. He has begun seeking information on how to repatriate himself. “If I die here, then who will help my family back home?” he said.

      The tented wasteland outside the Bosnian city of Bihac has become a dumping ground for single male migrants that the struggling authorities have no room to accommodate and don’t want hanging around the city. Bhangra music blasts out of a tinny speaker, putrid smoke billows from fires lit inside moldy tents, and men traipse in flip-flops into the surrounding woods to defecate, cut off from any running water or sanitation.

      A former landfill, ringed by land mines from the Yugoslav wars, the hamlet of Vucjak has become the latest squalid purgatory for Europe’s largely forgotten migrant crisis as thousands escaping war and poverty use it as a base camp to cross over the Croatian border—a process wryly nicknamed “the game.”

      The game’s unsuccessful players have dark stories to tell. A young Pakistani named Ajaz recently expelled from Croatia sips soup from a plastic bowl and picks at his split eyebrow. “They told us to undress and we were without shoes, socks, or jackets. They took our money, mobiles and bags with everything inside it, made a fire and burnt them all in front of us. Then they hit me in the eye with a steel stick,” he said. “They beat everyone, they didn’t see us as humans.”

      Mohammad, sitting beside his compatriot, pipes up: “Last week we were with two Arabic girls when the Croatian police caught us. The girls shouted to them ‘sorry, we won’t come back,’ but they didn’t listen, they beat them on their back and chest with sticks.”

      Down the hill in Bihac, in a drafty former refrigerator factory turned refugee facility, a metal container serves as a quarantine area for the infectious and infirm. Mohammad Bilal, a scrawny 16-year-old, lies on a lower bunk with his entire leg draped in flimsy bandage. Three weeks ago, at the cusp of winning the game and crossing into Italy, he was seized in Slovenia and then handed back to Croatia. That’s when the violence began.

      “They drove us in a van to the Bosnian border and took us out one at a time,” he said, describing the Croatian police. “There were eight police, and one by one they beat us, punching, kicking, hitting with steel sticks. They broke my leg.”

      A nearby Bosnian camp guard grimaced and wondered out loud: “Imagine how hard you have to hit someone to break a bone.”

      Among the fluctuating migrant population of 7,000 thought to be in the area, vivid descriptions of violent episodes are being retold every day. The allegations have been mounting over the last two years, since Bosnia became a new branch in the treacherous Balkan migratory route into Europe. Denunciations of Croatian border policy have come from Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, and a United Nations special rapporteur. Officials in Serbia have even alleged “physical and psychological torture” by Croatia’s police forces.

      In November 2018, the Guardian published a video shot by a migrant in which haunting screams can be heard before a group of migrants emerge from the darkness wild-eyed and bloodied. A month later, activists secretly filmed Croatian police marching lines of migrants back into Bosnian territory.

      Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic even appeared to let the cat out of the bag in an interview with the Swiss broadcaster Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen, during which she remarked that “a little bit of force is needed when doing pushbacks.” Despite the videos showing injured migrants, explicit video evidence of Croatian officials carrying out actual beatings has never been seen, and migrants report that one of the first commands by border guards is to surrender mobile phones, which are then either taken or destroyed before a thorough search is performed.

      The abuse appears to be rampant. Both the violence and humiliation—migrants are often forced to undress and walk back across the border to Bosnia half-naked for several hours in freezing temperatures—seem to be used as a deterrent to stop them from returning. And yet the European Union is arguably not only facilitating but rewarding brute force by a member state in the name of protecting its longest land border.

      In December 2018, the European Commission announced that it was awarding 6.8 million euros to Croatia to “strengthen border surveillance and law enforcement capacity,” including a “monitoring mechanism” to ensure that border measures are “proportionate and are in full compliance with fundamental rights and EU asylum laws.”

      According to European Commission sources, a sum of 300,000 euros was earmarked for the mechanism, but they could not assess its outcome until Croatia files a report due in early 2020. Details of oversight remain vague. A spokesperson for the United Nations refugee agency in Croatia told Foreign Policy that the agency has no involvement. The Croatian Law Center, another major nongovernmental organization, also confirmed it has no role in the mechanism. It appears to be little more than a fig leaf.

      https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/06/croatia-is-abusing-migrants-while-the-eu-turns-a-blind-eye
      #Slovénie

    • AYS Special 2019/2020: A Year of Violence — Monitoring Pushbacks on the Balkan Route

      In 2019, The Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN) shared the voices of thousands of people pushed back from borders on the Balkan Route. Each tells their own tale of illegal, and regularly violent, police actions. Each represents a person denied their fundamental rights, eyewitnesses to EU led reborderization. This article shares just some of the more startling trends which define border management on the eve of 2020, such as the denial of asylum rights, systemic firearms use, water immersion, and dog attacks.

      With a shared database of 648 reports, BVMN is a collaborative project of organisations with the common goal of challenging the illegal pushback regime and holding relevant institutions to account.

      “Pushback” describes the unlegislated expulsion of groups or individuals from one national territory to another, and lies outside the legal framework of “deportations”. On a daily basis, people-on-the-move are subject to these unlawful removals; a violent process championed by EU member states along the Balkan Route. In 2019, BVMN continued to shine a spotlight on these actions, perpetrated in the main part by states such as Croatia, Hungary, and Greece. Supporting actors also included Slovenia and Italy, and non-member states with the aid of Frontex which has seen its remit and funding widened heading into 2020.

      Volunteers and activists worked across the route in 2019 to listen to the voice of people facing these violations, taking interviews in the field and amplifying their calls for justice. Just some of the regular abuses that constitute pushbacks are listed below.
      Guns and Firearm Abuse

      The highest volume of BVMN reported pushbacks were from Croatia, a state which has been acting as a fulcrum of the EU’s external border policy in the West Balkans. It’s approximately 1300 kilometer long border with the non-member states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro have been a flashpoint for extremely violent pushbacks. Even in the challenging winter conditions, people make daily attempts to cross through the mountainous landscape of Croatia and are pushed back from the territory by a web of police actors who deny them the proper procedure and use crude physical abuse as a deterrent.

      Of major concern is the huge rise in gun use by Croatian officials against transit populations. In the first ten months of 2019 BVMN recorded 770 people who were pushed back by police officers who used guns to shoot or threaten. In November, shots were fired directly at transit groups, resulting in the near fatal wounding of one man, and causing a puncture wound in the shoulder of another. AYS reported on the shooting of two minors in 2017, showing this isn’t the first time guns were turned on unarmed transit people in Croatia.
      Dog Attacks and K9 Units

      The use of canine units in the apprehension and expulsion of transit groups is also a telling marker of the extreme violence that characterises pushbacks. Since the summer of 2019, a spike in the level of brutal dog attacks, and the presence of K9 units during pushbacks has been noted by BVMN. In a recent case, one man was mauled by a Croatian police dog for ten minutes under the direct guidance of the animals police handlers who laughed and shouted, “good, good”, as it almost severed a major blood vessel in the victim’s leg.

      Fortunately, the man survived, but with permanent injuries that he nurses still today in Bosnia-Herzegovina where he was illegally pushed back, in spite of his request for asylum and urgent physical condition. Sadly this is not an unfamiliar story. Across the route canine units remain a severe threat within pushbacks, as seen in cases recorded from North Macedonia to Greece where a man was severely bitten, or in chain a pushback from Slovenia where 12 unmuzzled police dogs traumatised a large transit group. Dogs as weapons are a timely reminder of the weighting of border policy towards violent aggression, and away from due legal access to asylum and regulated procedure.
      Gatekeeping Asylum Access

      K9 units and guns are ultra-violent policing methods that contribute directly to the blocking of asylum access. In the first eleven months of 2019, over 60% of Croatian pushbacks to Bosnia-Herzegovina saw groups make a verbal request for asylum. Yet in these cases, group members were pushed back from the territory without having their case heard, in direct contravention of European asylum law.

      Croatian authorities, along with a host of other states, have effectively mobilised pushbacks to remove people from their territories irrespective of claims for international protection. A host of actors, such as police officers and translators have warped the conditions for claiming asylum, regularly coercing people to sign removal documents, doctoring the ages of minors, or avoid any processing at all by delivering them to the green border immediately where they are pushed back with violence. Slovenia are also participants in this chain of asylum violation, seen most brutally in a case from July when pepper spray was used to target specifically the people who spoke out asking for asylum.
      Wet Borders: River Pushbacks

      Most pushbacks occur at remote areas of the green border, especially at night, where violence can be applied with effective impunity. A particular feature of police violence on the border is the weaponisation of rivers to abuse groups. Monitoring work from September revealed 50% of direct pushbacks from Croatia involved respondents being forced into rivers or immersed in water. This is accompanied regularly by the stripping of people (often to their underwear) and burning of their possessions. Then, police officer push them into the rivers that mark the boundary with Bosnia-Herzegovina (often the Glina and Korana), putting people at a high risk of drowning and hypothermia.

      A recent case from November combined the use of firearms with this dangerous use of wet borders. A group of Algerians were pushed into a river by Croatian officers who were returning them to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

      The respondent recalled how: “They pushed me into the river and said, ‘Good luck.’”, while the officers fired guns into the air.

      Meanwhile in the Evros region of Greece, the river border is used regularly to pushback people-on-the-move into Turkey. As in Croatia, the incidents often occur at night, and are carried out by officials wearing ski masks/balaclavas. Taken by force, transit groups report being loaded violently onto small boats and ferried across to the Turkish side. This regular and informal system of removal stands out as a common violation across Greece and the Balkan area, and raises major concerns about the associated risks of water immersion given the high levels of drowning which occur in the regions rivers.
      2019 at the EU’s Doorstep

      Border management on the Balkan Route has systematised a level of unacceptable, illegal and near fatal violence.

      The trends noted in 2019 are an astonishing reminder that such boundaries are no longer governed by the rule of law, but characterised almost entirely by the informal use of pushback violations.

      Gun use stands out as the most extreme marker of violence within pushbacks. But the shooting of weapons sits within a whole arsenal of policing methods that also include blunt physical assault, unlawful detention, abuse during transportation, taser misuse and stripping. Though Croatia emerged as a primary actor within BVMN’s dataset, common practive between EU member states were also clear, as across the region: Hungary, Slovenia and Greece continued to target people-on-the-move with a shared set of illegal and violent methods. The new interventions of Frontex outside of EU territory also look to compliment this reborderisation effort, as non-member states in the Western Balkans become integrated into the pushback regime.

      The Border Violence Monitoring Network will continue to elevate the brave voices of those willing to expose these violent institutions. Their stories are a testament to the dire situation at Europe’s borders on the eve of 2020, and accountability will continue to be sought.

      https://medium.com/are-you-syrious/ays-special-2019-2020-a-year-of-violence-monitoring-pushbacks-on-the-balkan-
      #2019 #chiens #armes #armes_à_feu

  • Création de zones frontalières (au lieu de lignes de frontière) en vue de refoulements

    Je viens de lire dans un compte-rendu de réunion qui a eu lieu à Milan en juin 2019, ce commentaire, sur la situation à la #frontière italo-slovène :

    Gianfranco Schiavone :

    «Quello che sicuramente dovrebbe diventare una questione delicata é l’annunciato avvio delle pattuglie italo slovene in frontiera con l’obiettivo dichiarato alla stampa di bloccare gli arrivi. Con riammissione senza formalita’ delle persone irregolari intercettate nella fascia dei 5 km dalla frontiera . Queste sono le dichiarazioni pubbliche di questi giorni»

    Une #zone_frontalière de #5_km dans laquelle ont lieu des #refoulements directs.

    #Italie #Slovénie #frontière_sud-alpine #migrations #réfugiés #asile #frontière_mobile #bande_frontalière #frontières_mobiles

    Ceci me rappelle d’autres cas, en Europe et ailleurs, dans lesquels des procédures semblables (la frontière n’est plus une #ligne, mais une #zone) ont été mises en place, j’essaie de les mettre sur ce fil de discussion.
    Si quelqu’un a d’autres cas à signaler, les contributions sont bienvenues...

    #métaliste

    ping @reka @simplicissimus @karine4 @isskein

    • A la frontière entre franco-italienne :

      Dans un amendement, l’élu a proposé « une zone limitée aux communes limitrophes ou une bande de 10 kms par rapport à la frontière. » Le gouvernement en a accepté le principe, mais « le délimitera de manière précise par décret pour coller à la réalité du terrain. »

      http://alpesdusud.alpes1.com/news/locales/67705/alpes-du-sud-refus-d-entree-pour-les-migrants-vers-une-evolution-
      #France #Italie #frontière_sud-alpine

    • L’article 10 de la loi renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme modifie l’article 78-2 du Code de procédure pénale relatif aux contrôles d’identités. Il permet ainsi des contrôles aux frontières pour une durée de douze heures consécutives (contre six auparavant). Il les élargit « aux abords » de 373 gares et dans un rayon de dix kilomètres des ports et aéroports au nombre des points de passage frontaliers. Bien au-delà des simples frontières de l’Hexagone, c’est une partie importante du territoire français qui est ainsi couvert, dont des villes entières comme Paris, Lyon, Toulouse, Marseille, etc.

      source, p.25 : https://www.lacimade.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/La_Cimade_Schengen_Frontieres.pdf
      #France

    • This month saw the introduction of joint Slovenian and Italian police patrols on their mutual border, raising concerns about the retrenchment of national boundaries contra the Schengen Agreement. The collaboration between authorities, due to be implemented until the end of September, mobilises four joint operations per week, with respective police forces able to enter 10km into the territory of their neighboring state in order to apprehend migrants. Mixed operations by member states signifies a growing trend towards the securitization of the EU’s internal borders, and in this case a tightening of controls on the departure point from the West Balkan route.

      The patrols aim at stemming the transit of migrants from the western Slovenian regions of #Goriška and #Obalno-kraška, into the eastern region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy. Given the extensive pushback apparatus being employed by Slovenian and Croatian officials, arrival in Italy has often been the first place where persons-in-transit can apply for international protection without the threat of summary removal. However, these developments in cross border patrols highlight a growing effort on the part of the Italian government to prevent people seeking sanctuary on its territory.

      (p.15-16)

      https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/July-2019-Final-Report.pdf
      #Italie #Slovénie #10_km

    • Kuster Backs Bill To Reduce 100-Mile Zone for Border Patrol Checkpoints

      Congresswoman Ann McLane Kuster is cosponsoring legislation to reduce border zones from 100 to 25 miles from the border (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3852?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22border+zone%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1), within which U.S. Customs and Border Patrol can set up immigration checkpoints.

      Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont is the prime sponsor of the legislation.

      Kuster was stopped at one such immigration checkpoint in June of this year. The checkpoint, on I-93 in Woodstock, around 90 miles from the border, resulted in 29 tickets for alleged immigration violations.

      The violations were for legal visitors who did not have appropriate paperwork on them, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

      According to a map from CityLabs, the entire state of New Hampshire falls within a border zone (which includes coastal borders).

      “I think it has a chilling effect,” says Kuster. “It’s not the free and open America that we know.”

      Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a similar bill to the Senate.

      https://www.nhpr.org/post/kuster-backs-bill-reduce-100-mile-zone-border-patrol-checkpoints#stream/0
      #USA #Etats-Unis

    • Inside the Massive U.S. ’Border Zone’

      All of Michigan, D.C., and a large chunk of Pennsylvania are part of the area where Border Patrol has expanded search and seizure rights. Here’s what it means to live or travel there.

      https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275
      #cartographie #visualisation
      #100-Mile_Zone

      déjà signalé sur seenthis par @reka en 2018 :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/727225

    • En #Hongrie, les pushbacks, largement pratiqués depuis des années, ont été légalisés en mars 2017 par de nouvelles dispositions permettant aux forces de l’ordre de refouler automatiquement toute personne interpellée sur le territoire hongrois et considérée en situation irrégulière. Ces personnes sont ramenées jusqu’à la clôture et renvoyées de l’autre côté. Si elles manifestent leur volonté de demander l’asile, on leur signifie qu’elles doivent repartir en Serbie et passer par les zones de transit. Pourtant, se trouvant géographiquement et juridiquement en Hongrie (le mur étant situé à 1,5 mètre à l’intérieur du tracé officiel de la frontière), les autorités ont l’obligation de prendre en compte ces demandes d’asile en vertu des conventions européennes et des textes internationaux dont la Hongrie est signataire.

      Tiré du rapport de La Cimade (2018), pp.37-38 :
      https://www.lacimade.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/La_Cimade_Schengen_Frontieres.pdf

    • Le zone di transito e di frontiera – commento dell’ASGI al decreto del Ministero dell’Interno del 5 agosto 2019

      Il 7 settembre 2009 sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 210 (https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2019/09/07/19A05525/sg) è stato pubblicato il decreto del Ministero dell’Interno del 5 agosto 2019 che individua le zone di transito e di frontiera dove potrà trovare applicazione la procedura accelerata per l’esame nel merito delle domande di protezione internazionale e istituisce due nuove sezioni delle Commissioni territoriali , come previsto dall’art. 28 bis co. 1 quater del D.lgs. n. 25/2008, introdotto dal d.l. n. 113/2018.

      Le zone di frontiera o di transito sono individuate in quelle esistenti nelle seguenti province:

      –Trieste e Gorizia;

      –Crotone, Cosenza, Matera, Taranto, Lecce e Brindisi;

      –Caltanissetta, Ragusa, Siracusa, Catania, Messina;

      –Trapani, Agrigento;

      –Città metropolitana di Cagliari e Sud Sardegna.

      Il decreto ministeriale istituisce altresì due nuove sezioni , Matera e Ragusa, le quali operano rispettivamente nella commissione territoriale per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato di Bari, per la zona di frontiera di Matera, e nella commissione territoriale di Siracusa, per la zona di frontiera di Ragusa.

      Nel commento qui pubblicato ASGI sottolinea come le nuove disposizioni paiono contrastare con le norme dell’Unione Europea perché si riferiscono in modo assolutamente generico alle “zone di transito o di frontiera individuate in quelle esistenti nelle province” e non ad aree delimitate, quali ad esempio i porti o le aree aeroportuali o altri luoghi coincidenti con frontiere fisiche con Paesi terzi non appartenenti all’Unione europea.

      ASGI evidenzia come “l’applicazione delle procedure accelerate alle domande presentate nelle zone individuate nel decreto ministeriale comporta una restrizione dell’effettivo esercizio dei diritti di cui ogni straniero è titolare allorché manifesta la volontà di presentare la domanda di asilo e una conseguente contrazione del diritto di difesa, in ragione del dimezzamento dei termini di impugnazione e dell’assenza di un effetto sospensivo automatico derivante dalla proposizione del ricorso previsti, in modo differente per le varie ipotesi specifiche, dall’art. 35 bis D. Lgs. 25/08”.

      A tal fine ASGI ricorda che:

      – ai cittadini di Paesi terzi o apolidi tenuti in centri di trattenimento o presenti ai valichi di frontiera, comprese le zone di transito alla frontiere esterne, che desiderino presentare una domanda di protezione internazionale, gli Stati membri devono garantire l’informazione, anche sull’accesso procedura per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale, adeguati servizi di interpretariato,
      nonché l’effettivo accesso a tali aree alle organizzazioni e alle persone che prestano consulenza e assistenza ai richiedenti asilo (art. 8 Direttiva 2013/32/UE);

      – gli Stati membri devono provvedere affinché l’avvocato o altro consulente legale che assiste o rappresenta un richiedente possa accedere alle aree chiuse, quali i centri di trattenimento e le zone di transito (art. 23 par. 2) e analoga possibilità deve essere garantita all’UNHCR (art. 29, par. 1);

      – ai sensi dell’art. 46 par. 1 il richiedente ha diritto a un ricorso effettivo dinanzi a un giudice anche nel caso in cui la decisione sulla domanda di protezione internazionale venga presa in frontiera o nelle zone di transito.

      E’ evidente, conclude ASGI nel commento al Decreto, che vi sia il rischio che lo straniero espulso o respinto e che abbia presentato domanda di protezione internazionale dopo l’espulsione o il respingimento in una zona di frontiera tra quelle indicate nel nuovo decreto ministeriale si veda esaminata la sua domanda in modo sommario mentre è trattenuto in condizioni e luoghi imprecisati e inaccessibili di fatto a difensori e organizzazioni di tutela dei diritti.

      Occorre invece ribadire che la presentazione della domanda di protezione internazionale in frontiera riguarderà spesso persone rese ulteriormente vulnerabili dalle condizioni traumatiche del viaggio ed alle quali andrà perciò in ogni caso garantito un esame adeguato della domanda di protezione internazionale e l’applicazione delle garanzie e dei diritti previsti a tutela dei richiedenti protezione internazionale dalle disposizioni nazionali e dell’Unione Europea.

      https://www.asgi.it/asilo-e-protezione-internazionale/asilo-zone-transito-frontiera

    • La loi renforçant la lutte contre le terrorisme étend à nouveau les contrôles d’identités frontaliers

      Avant l’entrée en vigueur de la loi du 30 octobre 2017, les #contrôles_frontaliers étaient autorisés dans les espaces publics des #gares, #ports et #aéroports ouverts au trafic international (désignés par un arrêté ministériel) et dans une zone située entre la frontière terrestre et une ligne tracée de 20 kilomètres en deçà. Le législateur avait étendu les zones frontalières, notamment dans les territoires ultra-marins (où la convention de Schengen n’est pourtant pas applicable).

      https://www.editions-legislatives.fr/actualite/la-loi-renforcant-la-lutte-contre-le-terrorisme-etend-a-nouvea
      #France #20_km #20_kilomètres #espace_public #gares_internationales

    • The Grand Chamber Judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary: Immigration Detention and how the Ground beneath our Feet Continues to Erode

      The ECtHR has been for a long time criticized for its approach to immigration detention that diverts from the generally applicable principles to deprivation of liberty in other contexts. As Cathryn Costello has observed in her article Immigration Detention: The Ground beneath our Feet, a major weakness in the Court’s approach has been the failure to scrutinize the necessity of immigration detention under Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR. The Grand Chamber judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary delivered on 21 November 2019 has further eroded the protection extended to asylum-seekers under the Convention to the point that restrictions imposed upon asylum-seekers might not even be qualified as deprivation of liberty worthy of the protection of Article 5. The Grand Chamber overruled on this point the unanimously adopted Chamber judgment that found that the holding of asylum-seekers in the ‘transit zone’ between Hungary and Serbia actually amounts to deprivation of liberty.

      In this blog, I will briefly describe the facts of the case, the findings of the Grand Chamber under Article 3 ECHR that was also invoked by the applicants and then I will focus on the reasoning as to the applicability of Article 5.

      The case concerned two Bangladeshi nationals who transited through Greece, the Republic of Northern Macedonia (as it is now known) and Serbia before reaching Hungary, where they immediately applied for asylum. They found themselves in the transit zone on the land border between Hungary and Serbia, where they were held for 23 days pending the examination of their asylum applications. The applications were rejected on the same day on the ground that the applicants had transited through Serbia that, according to Hungary, was a safe third country. The rejections were confirmed on appeal, an order for their expulsion was issued, the applicants were escorted out of the transit zone and they crossed back into Serbia.

      Procedural Breach of Article 3 ECHR

      The Grand Chamber established that Hungary ‘failed to discharge its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess the risks of treatment contrary to that provision before removing the applicants from Hungary’ to Serbia (para 163). No finding was made on the issue as to whether Hungary was substantively in breach of the right not to be subjected to refoulement given the conditions in Serbia and the deficiencies in the Serbian asylum procedures that might lead to chain refoulement. This omission follows a trend in the Court’s reasoning that can be described as a procedural turn: focus on the quality of the national decision making processes rather than on the substantive accuracy of the decisions taken at national level.[1] This omission, however, had important consequences for the application of Article 5 to the applicants’ case, the most controversial aspect in the Grand Chamber’s reasoning.

      The Chamber’s reasoning under Article 5 ECHR

      On this aspect, the Grand Chamber departed from the Chamber’s conclusion that the applicants were deprived of their liberty. The fundamental question here is whether ‘the stay’ (Hungary used the term ‘accommodation’) of asylum-seekers in the ‘transit zone’ with an exit door open to Serbia, but closed to Hungary, amounts to deprivation of liberty (i.e. detention) in the sense of Article 5 ECHR. Asylum seekers in the transit zone were denied access to the Hungarian territory,[2] but they could leave to Serbia. This creates a complex intertwinement between deprivation of liberty (Article 5(1)(f)) normally understood as not allowing somebody to leave a place, on the one hand, and not allowing somebody to enter a place. Entering a State can be very relevant from the perspective of the obligation upon this State not to refoule, which necessitates a procedure for determining whether there is a risk of refoulement.

      In its judgment from 14 March 2017 the Chamber unanimously answered in positive: by holding them in the transit zone, Hungary deprived the applicants from their liberty, which was in violation of Article 5(1)(f) since this measures had no legal basis in the national law. The Chamber clarified that‘[t]he mere fact that it was possible for them to leave voluntarily returning to Serbia which never consented to their readmission cannot rule out an infringement of the right to liberty.’ (para 55). In this way the Chamber reaffirmed the reasoning in Amuur v France where the Court observed ‘[…] this possibility [to leave voluntary the country] becomes theoretical if no other country offering protection comparable to the protection they expect to find in the country where they are seeking asylum is inclined or prepared to take them in.’ (para 48) It follows that although the transit zone at the French airport was, as France argued, “open to the outside”, the applicants were still considered as having been detained since this ‘outside’ did not offer a level of protection comparable to the one in France.

      The Chamber followed this reasoning from Amuur v France in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, which led to the recognition that ‘[…] the applicants could not have left the transit zone in the direction of Serbia without unwanted and grave consequences, that is, without forfeiting their asylum claims and running the risk of refoulement’ (para 55). The Chamber also added that ‘To hold otherwise would void the protection afforded by Article 5 of the Convention by compelling the applicants to choose between liberty and the pursuit of a procedure ultimately aimed to shelter them from the risk of exposure to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.’ (para 56)

      The ‘practical and realistic’ approach of the Grand Chamber under Article 5 ECHR

      The Grand Chamber in its reasoning broke precisely this linkage between the applicability of Article 5 (the qualification of a treatment as deprivation of liberty) and Article 3 (protection from refoulement). The Grand Chamber performed the following important moves to achieve this. First, it stated that ‘its approach should be practical and realistic, having regard to the present-day conditions and challenges’, which implied that States were not only entitled to control their borders, but also ‘to take measures against foreigners circumventing restrictions on immigration.’ (para 213). With Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary the Court has thus added another nuance to its well-established point of departure in cases dealing with migrants. This point of departure has been that States are entitled, subject to their treaty obligations, to control their borders. The new addition introduced with Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary and also repeated in Z.A. and Others v Russia, a Grand Chamber judgment issued on the same day, concerns States’ right to prevent ‘foreigners circumventing restrictions on immigration’. This addition, however, does not seem appropriate given that the applicants themselves in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary never circumvented any immigration control restrictions. They applied immediately for asylum.

      This ‘practical and realistic approach’ also implied an endorsement of the representation of the situation as one of ‘crisis’:[3] ‘the Court observes that the Hungarian authorities were in conditions of a mass influx of asylum-seekers and migrants at the border, which necessitated rapidly putting in place measures to deal with what was clearly a crisis situation.’ (para 228) In the same paragraph, the Grand Chamber went on to almost praise Hungary for having processed the applicants’ claims so fast event though it was ‘a crisis’: ‘Despite the ensuring very significant difficulties, the applicants’ asylum claims and their judicial appeals were examined within three weeks and two days.’ It appears as if the Grand Chamber at this stage had already forgotten its findings made earlier in the judgment under Article 3 that the national procedure for examining the applicants’ claims was deficient. This ultimately gave the basis for the Grand Chamber to find a violation of Article 3.

      The distinction based on how asylum-seekers arrive and the type of border they find themselves at

      The second move performed by the Grand Chamber implied the introduction of a distinction between ‘staying at airport transit zones’ (para 214) and at reception centers located on islands (para 216), on the one hand, and a transit zone located on the land border between two Council of Europe Member States (para 219). This meant, as the Court reasoned, that the applicants did not have to take a plane to leave the zone, they could simply walk out of the zone. In other words, it was practically possible for them to do it on their own and they did not need anybody’s help. As the Court continued to reason in para 236, ‘Indeed, unlike the case of Amuur, where the French courts described the applicants’ confinement as an “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”, in the present case the Hungarian authorities were apparently convinced that the applicants could realistically leave in the direction of Serbia [emphasis added].’ This quotation also begs the comment as to why what the national authorities were or were not convinced about actually mattered. In addition, the reference in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary as to how the national authorities had qualified the situation is also bizarre given that ‘deprivation of liberty’ is an autonomous concept under the Convention. On this point, the two dissenting judges, Judge Bianku and Judge Vućinić criticized the majority by highlighting that ‘the Court has reiterated on many occasions that it does not consider itself bound by the domestic courts’ legal conclusions as to the existence of a deprivation of liberty.’

      Narrowing down the importance of Amuur v France

      The third move performed by the Court is playing down the importance of and narrowing the relevance of Amuur v France. In Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary the Grand Chamber reiterated (para 239) the most significant pronouncement from Amuur: the possibility to leave the zone ‘becomes theoretical if no other country offering protection comparable to the protection they expect to find in the country where they are seeking asylum is included to take them in.’ It then noted that this reasoning ‘must be read in close relation to the factual and legal context in that case.’ This meant that in contrast to the situation in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, in Amuur the applicants could not leave ‘without authorization to board an airplane and without diplomatic assurance concerning their only possible destination, Syria, a country “not bound by the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.’ (para 240) On this point Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary can be also distinguished from Z.A. and Others v Russia, where the Grand Chamber observed that ‘[…] unlike in land border transit zones, in this particular case leaving the Sheremetyevo airport transit zone would have required planning, contacting aviation companies, purchasing tickets and possibly applying for a visa depending on the destination.’ (para 154) For the applicants in Ilias and Ahmed ‘it was practically possible […] to walk to the border and cross into Serbia, a country bound by the Geneva Convention.’ (para 241). The Grand Chamber acknowledged that the applicants feared of the deficiencies in the Serbian asylum procedure and the related risk of removal to the Republic of North Macedonia or Greece. (para 242) However, what seems to be crucial is that their fears were not related to ‘direct threat to their life or health’ (para 242). It follows that the possibility to leave for a place will not preclude the qualification of the situation as one of detention, only if this place poses a direct threat to life or health.

      As noted by the two dissenting judges, it did not seem to matter for the majority that the applicants could not enter Serbia lawfully. In this way, the majority’s reasoning under Article 5 appears to endorse a situation where people are just pushed out of the border without some formal procedures with elementary guarantees.

      Read as a whole the Grand Chamber judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary is inconsistent: it contains two findings that are difficult to square together. The Court concluded that since the applicants would not be exposed to a direct risk in Serbia, they were not detained in Hungary. At the same time, Hungary violated Article 3 of the Convention since it did not conduct a proper assessment of the risks that the applicants could face if they were to return to Serbia.

      Overall weakening of the protection of Article 5 ECHR

      One final comment is due. In Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, the Grand Chamber summarized the following factors for determining whether ‘confinement of foreigners in airport transit zones and reception centers’ can be defined as deprivation of liberty: ‘i) the applicants’ individual situation and their choices, ii) the applicable legal regime of the respective country and its purpose, iii) the relevant duration, especially in the light of the purpose and the procedural protection enjoyed by applicants pending the events, and iv) the nature and degree of the actual restrictions imposed on or experienced by the applicants.’ (para 217) (see also Z.A. and Others v Russia, para 145) Among these criteria particular attention needs to be directed to the applicable legal regime and the availability of procedural protection. In principle, Article 5, if found applicable, offers certain guarantees (e.g. statutory basis for the deprivation of liberty, access to proceedings for challenging the lawfulness of the detention). The Court seems to have inserted such considerations at the definitional stage of its analysis. For example, in Z.A. and Others v Russia, the Grand Chamber when it examined whether the confinement of the applicants in the airport transit zone amounted to deprivation of liberty, noted that they were left ‘in a legal limbo without any possibility of challenging the measure restricting their liberty’ (para 146). This played a role for the Grand Chamber to conclude that the applicants in Z.A. and Others v Russia were indeed deprived of liberty and Article 5 was thus found applicable. In contrast, the Grand Chamber in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary observed that certain procedural guarantees applied to the applicants’ case (para 226), which also played a role for the final conclusion that Article 5 was not applicable. In sum, instead of scrutinizing the national legal regime and the access to procedural guarantees as part of the substantive analysis under Article 5, where a single deficiency leads to a finding of a violation (i.e. it is sufficient to find a violation of Article 5 if there is no strictly defined statutory basis for the applicants’ detention), the Court has muddled these criteria together with other factors and made them pertinent for the definitional analysis. This ultimately weakens the roles of these criteria and creates uncertainty.

      [1] See V Stoyanova, ‘How Exception must “Very Exceptional” Be? Non-refoulement, Socio-Economic Deprivation and Paposhvili v Belgium’ (2017) International Journal of Refugee Law 29(4) 580.

      [2] See B Nagy, ‘From Reluctance to Total Denial: Asylum Policy in Hungary 2015-2018’ in V Stoyanova and E Karageorgiou (eds) The New Asylum and Transit Countries in Europe during and in the Aftermath of the 2015/2016 Crisis (Brill 2019) 17.

      [3] Boldizsar Nagy has argued that this representation made by the Hungarian government is a lie. See B Nagy, Restricting access to asylum and contempt of courts: illiberals at work in Hungary, https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/restricting-access-to-asylum-and-contempt-of-courts-illiberals-at

      https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/12/23/the-grand-chamber-judgment-in-ilias-and-ahmed-v-hungary-immigra
      #justice #CEDH #Hongrie #CourEDH

  • Matteo #Salvini veut construire un mur à la frontière entre la Slovénie et l’Italie

    Voilà une semaine que des #patrouilles slovéno-italiennes parcourent la frontière entre les deux pays pour empêcher les passages illégaux de réfugiés. Présentée comme une intensification de la coopération entre Rome et Ljubljana, la mesure ne satisfait pas le ministre italien de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, qui a évoqué l’idée d’un mur à la frontière Est de la Botte.

    L’image, digne d’un spot de campagne proeuropéen, a fait le tour des médias slovènes : tous sourires, deux gardes-frontières slovène et italien se serrent solennellement la main, encouragés par un concert de bons mots sur la coopération policière entre Rome et Ljubljana. La mise en place d’une patrouille frontalière binationale, proposée par le ministre slovène des Affaires étrangères Miro Cerar et approuvée par son homologue italien, vise à empêcher plus efficacement les franchissements illégaux. « Nous nous attendons à des résultats positifs », a déclaré à la télévision slovène 24UR Vincenzo Avallone, chef de secteur de la police frontalière basée à Udine. « Cette coopération contribuera à un meilleur partage d’informations, crucial pour continuer notre travail. »

    Jusqu’au 30 septembre, quatre patrouilles de police se succèderont chaque semaine, trois côté slovène et une côté italien. Formées à Trieste, les équipes pourront entrer jusqu’à dix kilomètres dans le territoire des deux pays, avec pour mission de surveiller les points de passage les plus sensibles. « Nous avons travaillé sur cette initiative durant des mois », s’est félicité le gouverneur de la région de Frioul-Vénétie julienne, Massimiliano Fedriga, cité par l’agence italienne ANSA. « La pression politico-diplomatique sur la Slovénie et les pays des Balkans s’est accentuée », précise-t-il, tout en présentant la mesure comme « un commencement, pas une solution ».
    « Rendre la frontière infranchissable »

    La semaine dernière, Matteo Salvini, vice-Premier ministre italien en charge de l’Intérieur, a affirmé que si ces patrouilles ne suffisaient pas, il ferait installer des « obstacles physiques » à la frontière, à commencer par une barrière de fils barbelés. Avant d’évoquer l’idée de sceller la frontière orientale : « Nous allons rendre la frontière avec la Slovénie infranchissable, et ce par tous les moyens disponibles ».

    Le 5 juin, 500 personnes s’étaient rassemblées en signe de protestation dans la commune frontalière de #Nova_Gorica - #Gorizia, et 300 autres à Trieste lors d’une visite de Matteo Salvini à Trieste pour la signature d’un contrat d’investissement avec la Hongrie. « Chez nous, le dernier mur est tombé en 2004 [date de l’entrée de la Slovénie dans l’UE]. L’érection d’un nouveau mur éveillerait le passé, ce qui serait non seulement douloureux mais également contreproductif », explique le maire de Gorizia, Rudi Ziberna, à La Repubblica. Au premier semestre 2019, 5306 migrants auraient franchi la frontière slovéno-croate, une hausse de près de 50% par rapport à 2018 (3612 passages). 146 auraient été renvoyés en Slovénie, contre 158 l’année précédente.

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/refugies-Salvini-mur-frontiere-Slovenie-Italie
    #frontières #frontière_sud-alpine #murs #barrières_frontalières #Italie #Slovénie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #coopération_bilatérale #gardes-frontière #militarisation_des_frontières

    • Il muro anti-migranti tra Italia e Slovenia proposto dalla Lega costerebbe 2 miliardi di euro

      Il governatore del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Massimiliano Fedriga, ha parlato dell’ipotesi di costruire un muro di 243 chilometri al confine orientale dell’Italia, tra Friuli e la Slovenia.

      In un’intervista rilasciata al Fatto Quotidiano domenica 30 giugno, ha dichiarato che sta valutando l’ipotesi di realizzare il piano insieme al Viminale. La sua realizzazione risponderebbe infatti alla necessità di “fermare l’ondata migratoria che avanza”.

      “Se l’Europa non tutela i suoi confini noi saremo costretti a fermare l’ondata migratoria che avanza attraverso altri altri Paesi dell’Ue con tutti i mezzi. Non possiamo mettere poliziotti a ogni metro”, ha detto il leghista.
      Muro anti migranti Friuli | Costo

      Ma quanto costerebbe realizzare un vero e proprio muro anti migranti tra Friuli Venezia Giulia e Slovenia?

      Il coordinatore nazionale dei Verdi, Angelo Bonelli, ha calcolato che la sua costruzione costerebbe circa 2 miliardi di euro alle casse dello stato.

      “Per 100chilometri di reticolato al confine tra Usa e Messico il congresso americano ha autorizzato a Trump la spesa di 1,3 miliardi di dollari. E quindi per 243 chilometri di reticolato in Italia, il costo sarà di circa 2 miliardi di euro”, ha detto Bonelli.

      Un’infrastruttura del genere sarebbe, per questo, non solo discutibile dal punto di vista politico e morale, ma anche dal punto di vista pratico.

      Le spese per la costruzione del muro ricadrebbero su molti di quei cittadini italiani che, di questi tempi, probabilmente accoglierebbero con favore il piano.
      Muro anti migranti Friuli | Le critiche

      Le critiche all’idea del progetto non sono tardate ad arrivare anche da parte di altri personaggi pubblici, che si sono concentrati sull’aspetto politico del piano, ritenuto da alcuni anacronistico.

      Lo scrittore e saggista Claudio Magris ha scritto sul Corriere della Sera che un progetto simile sarebbe anti-storico, e rievocherebbe l’epoca della cortina di ferro, costruita alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale tra Trieste e la ex Jugoslavia di Tito.

      Anche diversi membri del Movimento 5 stelle hanno criticato il piano, tra cui il deputato e giornalista Emilio Carelli, che ha detto: “Spero che l’idea del governatore Massimiliano Fedriga non venga raccolta da nessuna forza politica. Non è alzando i muri che si governano i problemi delle migrazioni”.

      Giuseppe Brescia, presidente della Commissione Affari costituzionali della Camera ed esponente del M5S, ha invece affermato: “Questa iniziativa non ha né capo né coda, non se ne dovrebbe nemmeno parlare. Non è in agenda né nel contratto di governo, quelli della Lega non possono spararla sempre più grossa”.

      https://www.tpi.it/2019/07/01/muro-anti-migranti-friuli-fedriga-costo/

    • PM Says Fence Not Needed on Slovene-Italian Border

      Prime Minister Marjan Šarec has dismissed ideas by senior Italian officials that a fence should be erected on the Slovenian-Italian border, telling the National Assembly that such proposals had to be interpreted “in the domestic policy context”.

      “In talks with the Italian government we will state that there are no reasons for the border, this is clear from the numbers ... Italy is not threatened by Slovenia’s inactivity, and we will substantiate that,” he said.

      Šarec made the comment when he was quizzed by opposition MPs in parliament on Tuesday about the recent launch of mixed police patrols on the border, their implication being that the beefed up controls are the result of Slovenia’s failure to properly protect the Schengen border.

      Stressing that the number of persons Italy returned to Slovenia had dropped by 17% in the first half of 2019 compared to the same period last year, Šarec said Slovenian police were doing all they could to protect the Schengen border and curb illegal migrations.

      Border patrols are “not a measure that would squeeze Slovenia out of the Schengen zone,” as Democrat (SDS) MP Branko Grims claimed, as Italy has such cooperation with all of its neighbours and Slovenia also had such mixed patrols on its other borders, according to Šarec.

      New Slovenia (NSi) deputy Jernej Vrtovec wondered why Slovenia had proposed mixed patrols, labelling it an admission of its inability to control the Schengen border. But Šarec stressed that it was not the government that had proposed joint patrols, this was the result of an agreement at the level of both police forces.

      For Šarec, the key thing to dam migrations is for Frontex, the EU’s border agency, to be deployed on Croatia’s borders with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia.

      Overall, border control is “a serious issue that the new EU Commission will have to tackle with all seriousness... Migrations will be with us for years to come ... the EU is not active in tackling these issues,” he said, adding: “Schengen is de facto not working anymore.”

      Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini recently suggested Italy might erect a fence on its border with Slovenia if joint police patrols do not suffice to stop migrations, raising fears of a return to border checks that would severely disrupt life along the border.

      While the right has taken the announcement as evidence of Slovenia’s failings, politicians on the left have started urging the government to take action to prevent such a scenario from unfolding.

      Social Democrat (SD) deputy Matjaž Nemec thus urged Šarec today to take the initiative and invite the prime ministers of all countries on the Western Balkan migration route, including Italy and Austria, to jointly tackle the issue.

      But others think Italy will do as it likes regardless of what Slovenia does.

      Robert Polnar, an MP for the Pensioners’ Party (DeSUS), said Italy’s measures would probably be harsher than the measures Slovenia is adopting.

      And Luka Mesec, the leader of the Left, said Salvini was “playing his game” in order to win the election in Italy.

      "What the Slovenian right is doing, and partially the government by starting to announce drones and fencing ... is acquiescing to this game... Our politicians are dancing to Sallvini’s tune, Mesec said on the margins of the plenary today.

      https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/4072-pm-says-fence-not-needed-on-slovene-italian-border

    • Misure rafforzate contro l’immigrazione irregolare e per difendere i porti

      Nell’occasione è stato espresso apprezzamento anche per la decisione della Slovenia, che confermando le intenzioni anticipate al governo italiano ha annunciato il via ai pattugliamenti congiunti con la polizia croata.

      www.interno.gov.it/it/notizie/misure-rafforzate-contro-limmigrazione-irregolare-e-difendere-i-porti

      Commentaire Sara Prestianni, reçu via email:

      « l’Italie, qui avait annoncé il y a quelque semaine de vouloir construire un mur avec la Slovenie puis dementis puisque ont été relancé les patrouilles conjointes Italie/Slovenie, se felicite de l’annonce de la Slovenie de proceder à des patrouilles conjointe avec la Croatie »

    • Reçu via la newsletter Inicijativa Dobrodosli, le 29.07.2019 :

      Slovenia deployed 35 soldiers at the border to Italy to prevent migration and confirmed its “commitment” (www.h-alter.org/vijesti/slovenija-od-danas-s-vojskom-na-granici-kod-kopra) in helping Croatia with combating illegal migration, and proposed the potential sending of #Frontex to the EU’s external borders, H-alter writes (www.h-alter.org/vijesti/slovenija-od-danas-s-vojskom-na-granici-kod-kopra).

      Slovenija od danas s vojskom na granici kod Kopra

      Slovenski mediji objavili su jučer kako će se od danas “u zaštitu granice s Italijom od ilegalnih migracija” uključiti dodatnih 35 vojnika, koji su poslani kao ispomoć policiji kod Kopra, gdje je prošli tjedan uhićeno 122 osoba u tranzitu. Vojnici će koristiti sredstva koje vojska ima u redovitoj upotrebi, od sredstava za promatranje do oklopnih vozila.

      Pojačani angažman Slovenije na sprečavanju migracija na granici s Italijom počeo je početkom ovog mjeseca kada su uvedene zajedničke ophodnje slovenske i talijanske policije.

      Slovenski ministar unutarnjih poslova Boštjan Poklukar i njegov talijanski kolega Matteo Salvini sastali su se prošlog tjedna i potvrdili svoju “predanost” pomoći Hrvatskoj “u borbi protiv nezakonite migracije”, te su predložili potencijalno slanje Frontexa na vanjske granice Europske unije.

      http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/slovenija-od-danas-s-vojskom-na-granici-kod-kopra
      #armée #armée_slovène

    • Reçu via la newsletter Inicijativa Dobrodosli, le 02.08.2019 :

      Also, after last week’s news on the Slovenian army at the border with Italy and the proposal to send Frontex to the border with Croatia, this week we learn (https://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/clanak/slovenci-navukli-uniforme-i-sami-stite-granicu-s-hrvatskom-od-migranata-vice) that a group of Slovenian locals in the Metlika and Črnomelj area dress in camouflage uniforms and patrol the border area. Non-sanctioning of such patrols, especially fueled by anti-immigrant attitudes, may further jeopardize access to international protection and the safety of persons on the move.

      –----

      Slovenci navukli uniforme i sami štite granicu s Hrvatskom od migranata : ’Vičemo im : Ovo je moja zemlja, odmah lezite’, a oni bježe’

      Neobična priča dolazi iz pograničnog područja uz Kupu sa slovenske strane granice s Hrvatskom. Razočarani odnosom službene Ljubljane, koja bi po njima trebala činiti više da zaštiti granicu od migrantskog vala, dio mještana tog kraja organizirao se u ’seoske straže’. Iako nisu naoružani, tvrde da im je cilj povećati osjećaj sigurnosti uz granicu

      Kako izvještava slovenski portal Siol.net, straža se sastoji od desetak mještana koji u maskirnim uniformama patroliraju pograničnim područjem u okolici Metlike i Črnomelja. Jedino oružje koje koriste u svom ’nadzoru granice’ njihov je glas.

      ’Vičemo im: ’Ovo je moja zemlja, ovo je Slovenija, odmah lezite!’ No oni ne slušaju naša naređenja, okrenu se i bježe’, svjedoči Blaž Zidar, jedan od mještana koji svakodnevno patrolira.

      https://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/clanak/slovenci-navukli-uniforme-i-sami-stite-granicu-s-hrvatskom-od-migranata-vice ?

      Les photos publiées avec l’article :

      ... dont une qui montre le nom du village : #Gibina (#Gibanje_Omejeno), à la frontière entre la #Slovénie et la #Croatie, et non pas avec l’Italie —> donc sur la route vers l’#Autriche :

      #barrières_frontalières #barbelés

    • Reçu via la newsletter Inicijativa Dobrodosli, le 12.08.2019:

      The Slovenian government (http://hr.n1info.com/Regija/a425162/Slovenija-mobilizirala-pomocnu-policiju-zbog-migranata-i-sigurnosti-u-pro) has mobilized an increased number of reserve police forces, arguing that the Slovenian border is threatened by ’’an increased influx of migrants’’. The Border Police of Bosnia and Herzegovina (https://m.vecernji.hr/vijesti/eurozastupnik-podupire-bih-sram-me-je-hrvatska-granicna-policija-se-ne-sm) said it expects border surveillance equipment from the Czech Republic, stating that they "urgently need sophisticated sensor and radar systems to monitor day and night conditions and detect illegal crossings, special cameras, drones, vehicles for monitoring and surveillance, mobile equipment for direct access to databases as well as border control equipment intended for the detection of people in hidden spaces.’’

    • Italy/Slovenia enact joint patrols along their shared border

      This month saw the introduction of joint Slovenian and Italian police patrols on their mutual border, raising concerns about the retrenchment of national boundaries contra the Schengen Agreement. The collaboration between authorities, due to be implemented until the end of September, mobilises four joint operations per week, with respective police forces able to enter 10km (https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/17916/italy-slovenia-start-joint-border-patrols) into the territory of their neighboring state in order to apprehend migrants. Mixed operations by member states signifies a growing trend towards the securitization of the EU’s internal borders, and in this case a tightening of controls on the departure point from the West Balkan route. The patrols aim at stemming the transit of migrants from the western Slovenian regions of Goriška and Obalno-kraška, into the eastern region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy. Given the extensive pushback apparatus being employed by Slovenian and Croatian officials, arrival in Italy has often been the first place where persons-in-transit can apply for international protection without the threat of summary removal. However, these developments in cross border patrols highlight a growing effort on the part of the Italian government to prevent people seeking sanctuary on its territory. The Telegraph reported (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/08/anti-migrant-patrols-italy-slovenia-border-raise-spectre-post) that the operations had already generated “the arrest of 97 migrants in just 48 hours”, and were being carried out on both local roads and motorways across the breadth of the 120 mile land border. But the newspaper also expressed its concerns around the reintroduction of border controls, suggesting the joint operations were “conjuring up memories of the barbed wire and fences which made peoples’ lives miserable after World War Two”. The article cited the rise in local tensions in the town of Novi Gorica, as the functions of a more formalised border came back into place. Split in the aftermath of WW2, #Gorizia came to form half the town on the Italian side while the other half, #Novi_Gorica, was under Yugoslavian control. The local experience of separation within the community has informed a growing unease regarding these new border procedures, as seen in demonstrations on the Slovenian side by locals opposing a hard border. But it would seem the patrols are likely to become a regular function within the bilateral work of the Slovenian and Italian police given the rising anti-migrant rhetoric being mobilized by Italian Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini. The Interior Minister has already made calls for a border fence between the countries, should these joint patrols not bring transit into Italy under control. The knock on effect has been felt in Slovenia, where conservative opposition party NSi have made subsequent calls for the further protection of its border with Croatia. Concerned by what Balkan Insight termed a “Hungarian-style border fence” in Italy, the Slovenian parliamentary right are seeking assurances that Slovenia will not become a bottleneck for migrants whose passage to Italy is blocked. To this end, Slovenian Prime Minister Marjan Šarec made a visit to the southern border and, according to Croatian media (https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/37027-slovenia), pledged further police to the efforts, along with military assistance and drones. Here once again, the courtship rituals of these respective member states continues to dance ever closer to the reestablishment of fixed borders and further from a reappraisal of their obligations to international asylum law.

      (pp.16-18)

      Source: https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/July-2019-Final-Report.pdf

    • Italy, Slovenia start joint border patrols

      A joint border patrol mission between Italy and Slovenia started Monday. The aim is to stem the flow of migrants reaching the north-eastern Italian region of Friuli Venezia Giulia from the eastern border.

      A joint Italian-Slovenian border patrol officially began Monday. The main aim of the cross-border collaboration between the police forces is to stem the flow of migrants who cross into Italian territory from the eastern border, authorities said.

      To start, four joint patrols have been planned per week with two Italian border police officers and two Slovenian colleagues who can be deployed in an area of up to 10 kilometers within their respective territories.

      Massimiliano Fedriga, governor of the Friuli Venezia Giulia region, said ’’we have been working for months on the initiative’’ because ’’Italy’s political-diplomatic pressure on Slovenia, as well as on Balkan countries, has increased." He added that the measure is “a start, not a solution.”

      Italy is ready ’’to adopt other’’ measures, the governor also said, including the suspension of Schengen rules, ’’as already done by Austria with Slovenia’’, or erecting a border barrier in northeastern Italy, The barrier, the governor added, would not be erected along the entire border, as previously reported, “but potentially on some of the most critical points,” citing the woods in the Karst region, in order to “channel undocumented (migrants) along routes that are easy to control.” Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has repeatedly spoken over the past few days of “sealing the eastern border.”

      Slovenia says no emergency at the border with Italy

      Speaking at a press conference at the former Lipica border crossing to mark the start of the joint patrols, Slovenian authorities said there “is no emergency at the border with Italy.” Since the start of the year, said the director general of Slovenian police, Marian Stubljar, ’’the readmissions of illegal (migrants) from Italy to Slovenia were 146 against 158 last year." The most critical situation in terms of migrant arrivals today is at the border with Croatia, the Slovenian official said.

      As of June 29, Slovenian police at the border with Croatia registered 5,306 illegal crossings, compared to 3,612 in 2018, noted Stubljar. Most of them were ’’Afghan, Algerian and Pakistani citizens." Therefore the situation remains critical outside the Schengen area ’’at the border with Bosnia," said the official.

      Patrols to prevent migrants from crossing into Italy

      Although readmissions have not increased compared to last year, Italian authorities explained, the aim of the joint border patrols is to prevent migrants from entering national territory. Once they have crossed into Italy, they cannot be sent back if they apply for asylum, the officials said. Vincenzo Avallone, the official in charge of the so-called Fourth zone of the Udine border police, said authorities ’’expect good results’’ from the operation.

      Further developments in immigration policies could follow the visit of Deputy Premier Salvini who is expected on Friday to travel to Trieste, the main city of Friuli Venezia Giulia.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/17916/italy-slovenia-start-joint-border-patrols

    • Migranti: fine pattugliamento congiunto Italia-Slovenia

      Il pattugliamento congiunto del confine fra Italia e Slovenia, una iniziativa avviata a luglio scorso e programmata fino alla fine di settembre, è formalmente terminato, ma la collaborazione transfrontaliera delle forze di polizia in alcune aree prosegue. Lo scrive l’agenzia di stampa STA, che riporta una dichiarazione della polizia distrettuale di Capodistria, dove la collaborazione prosegue. A Nova Gorica invece le pattuglie congiunte sono state sospese. Durante il pattugliamento congiunto nell’area del capodistriano sono state condotte 46 operazioni di pattugliamento congiunto, 36 in Slovenia e 10 in Italia. Fino al 30 settembre di quest’anno sono stati poco meno di quattromila (3.922) gli stranieri intercettati lungo la zona di frontiera, un numero leggermente in crescita rispetto allo stesso periodo dello scorso anno, quando furono fermati 3.272 migranti.

      http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/it/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2019/10/02/migranti-fine-pattugliamento-congiunto-italia-slovenia_c0eb4322-dde5-4141-

    • La frontiera invisibile che passa da Trieste

      “Quando sono entrato in Italia ho ringraziato dio e poi mi sono messo a ballare in mezzo alla strada”, racconta Tariq Abbas, un ragazzo pachistano di 26 anni, mentre mostra il punto esatto in cui è sceso dall’auto del passeur che qualche mese fa lo ha portato dalla Bosnia all’Italia, davanti a un bar sull’autostrada che dalla Slovenia conduce a Trieste. Aveva provato ad attraversare la frontiera tra Bosnia e Croazia quindici volte, senza riuscirci. Alla fine ha deciso di pagare un trafficante per essere portato in auto a destinazione, in Italia, insieme ad altre dieci persone. Si trovava da mesi nel campo governativo di Bira, un’ex fabbrica di Bihać, in Bosnia, dove è stato allestito un campo ufficiale dall’Organizzazione internazionale delle migrazioni (Oim).

      A Bira mancava tutto, racconta Abbas. L’acqua, i servizi, la fiducia negli altri. Risse e furti erano all’ordine del giorno in una situazione sempre più difficile. “Ero partito dal Pakistan un anno e mezzo prima e mi trovavo bloccato in Bosnia da mesi”. Così l’unica strada è stata quella di affidarsi a uno dei tanti passeur che frequentano il campo. “È pieno di persone che offrono di facilitare il viaggio, all’interno degli stessi campi in Bosnia”, racconta. Ha speso una cifra altissima: 3.500 euro per farsi portare prima a piedi e poi in auto dove voleva arrivare. Mentre percorre il sentiero che costeggia l’autostrada, Abbas mostra gli oggetti che altre persone hanno lasciato lungo la strada: zaini, sacchi a pelo, indumenti. Sono le tracce di un passaggio costante e silenzioso.

      Una rotta di cui non si parla
      L’8 novembre un ragazzo siriano di vent’anni è stato ritrovato senza vita nei boschi della Slovenia. Come tanti prima di lui, come tanti dopo di lui, provava ad attraversare la frontiera, percorrendo una rotta che non è mai stata chiusa, nonostante l’accordo con il presidente turco Recep Tayyip Erdoğan costato all’Unione europea sei miliardi di euro nel 2016 e malgrado la costruzione del muro tra Ungheria e Serbia voluto dal premier ungherese Viktor Orbán nel 2015. Il ragazzo siriano aveva vent’anni e voleva raggiungere i suoi due fratelli, emigrati anni prima in Germania. Si è perso nei boschi, in autunno, per sfuggire ai controlli della polizia slovena e croata lungo i sentieri che attraversano il confine.

      Lo stesso giorno trentacinque persone sono state fermate nella stessa zona, tra Croazia e Bosnia, e rimandate indietro in quella che si è trasformata nella frontiera orientale dell’Europa, proprio nelle stesse ore in cui in tutti i paesi del vecchio mondo si celebrava il trentesimo anniversario della caduta del muro di Berlino. “Non si è trattato di una fatalità”, afferma Gianfranco Schiavone del Consorzio italiano di solidarietà (Ics) di Trieste, membro dell’Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione (Asgi). “Ma è la manifestazione di una situazione drammatica che riguarda migliaia di profughi lungo la rotta dei Balcani. Quella morte si aggiunge ad altre avvenute negli ultimi anni lungo questa rotta”, continua Schiavone, secondo cui gli arrivi in Italia dalla rotta dei Balcani sono bassi, ma costanti.

      “Stiamo parlando di una ventina di persone al giorno che arrivano a Trieste dai Balcani”, continua. Eppure, secondo l’esperto, “c’è molto silenzio su quello che succede lungo la frontiera orientale, perché è come se non si volesse riconoscere che pesanti violazioni dei diritti umani stanno avvenendo in territorio europeo: in Croazia, in Slovenia”. Sono numerosi i report che denunciano le violenze della polizia croata che picchia, deruba e respinge indietro migranti e profughi, violando una serie di norme internazionali. Ma, secondo gli esperti, su questo aspetto è sceso un silenzio preoccupante.

      Il muro e i cani
      Invece c’è molta enfasi sulle misure di contrasto all’ingresso degli immigrati sul territorio italiano: qualche giorno fa i consiglieri di Fratelli d’Italia nel comune di Trieste hanno proposto di dotare la polizia di frontiera di cani poliziotto per rincorrere i migranti che provano a entrare nel paese. L’estate scorsa aveva fatto discutere la proposta del governatore del Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Massimiliano Fredriga, di costruire un muro al confine con la Slovenia. Per monsignor Carlo Roberto Maria Redaelli, presidente della Caritas e arcivescovo di Gorizia, “nessuno vorrebbe la costruzione di un muro in Friuli-Venezia Giulia, c’è stata troppa sofferenza legata alla frontiera”. Il ricordo del muro è ancora molto presente: “Appena fuori Gorizia c’è un paesino che ha un cimitero dalla parte slovena: sono passati in mezzo alle tombe per segnare il confine e quando la frontiera era in piedi gli abitanti di quel paese non potevano andare neppure a mettere un fiore su quelle tombe”, racconta Redaelli.

      Per gli esperti l’idea di costruire un muro è irrealistica e contraria alla legge. “La frontiera è lunga trecento chilometri, di cui la maggior parte in montagna”, spiega Schiavone. “Inoltre nessuna barriera fisica può essere innalzata tra due paesi che fanno parte dello spazio Schengen, quello che è possibile è ripristinare in maniera temporanea i controlli di frontiera. Ma il ripristino deve essere giustificato da un motivo preciso”, commenta il presidente di Ics, che aggiunge: “La discussione pubblica rimane dominata dall’ossessione dei respingimenti, ciò porta spesso le persone a nascondersi, a fare percorsi pericolosi e ad affidarsi alle reti criminali, che così alzano il prezzo dei loro servizi”.

      L’Asgi – di cui Schiavone fa parte – ha lanciato un progetto di monitoraggio transnazionale delle violazioni dei diritti umani che stanno avvenendo lungo la rotta dei Balcani. Per Schiavone l’ultima misura adottata delle pattuglie miste italo-slovene per intercettare i migranti prima che entrino in Italia è un ulteriore spreco di risorse pubbliche, potrebbe aver violato alcune norme internazionali che impongono di non respingere dei potenziali richiedenti asilo o dei minorenni e produce come unico effetto l’apertura di percorsi ancora più pericolosi, che mettono a serio rischio la vita delle persone, specialmente con l’arrivo dell’inverno.

      Anche per il prefetto di Trieste Valerio Valenti le pattuglie italoslovene, sperimentate tra luglio e settembre 2019, sono state poco efficaci. Sono state intercettate quaranta persone in tutto e rimandate in Slovenia. Le riammissioni totali dall’Italia alla Slovenia nel 2019 sono state 118 a fronte di circa cinquemila ingressi. “Le pattuglie miste sono formate da tre agenti: due sloveni e un italiano e operano alla frontiera per sei ore, quattro giorni alla settimana, per intercettare i migranti prima che arrivino sul territorio italiano. In termini di numeri l’esperienza non è stata particolarmente produttiva. Ma la collaborazione tra polizie di stati confinanti è sempre una buona cosa, spero che la collaborazione (ora conclusa, ndr), possa continuare”, afferma il prefetto. Ma il problema a Trieste, come in tutto il paese, sembra essere più legato ai tagli economici al sistema di accoglienza che non all’aumento degli arrivi di migranti.

      “Abbiamo avviato un programma di alleggerimento e ridistribuzione delle persone dal Friuli-Venezia Giulia all’intero paese, nell’idea che il flusso di migranti è costante in Friuli e per garantire che i centri non fossero mai sovraffollati. Da luglio a settembre abbiamo spostato 1.160 persone in altri centri italiani e le persone presenti in accoglienza nella regione al momento sono circa 2.600”, spiega Valenti. Inoltre “i bandi per i centri di accoglienza sono andati deserti, perché le organizzazioni che si occupano di accoglienza hanno ritenuto che i tagli previsti siano troppo alti (dai 35 euro a persona ai 27 euro a persona) e non consentirebbero di offrire i servizi di base”, continua il prefetto.

      Schiavone di Ics è molto critico: “Il sistema del Friuli-Venezia Giulia è stato destrutturato dal cosiddetto decreto sicurezza, soprattutto a Udine e Gorizia. Nel caso di Trieste è rimasto uguale, perché Ics e Caritas si sono rifiutati di accettare gli standard dei capitolati, anche se c’è un’atmosfera molto precaria. Si voleva trasformare il sistema di accoglienza in una specie di dormitorio, inoltre si rischiava di perdere posti di lavoro. Tuttavia, anche con il nuovo governo, la vicenda non è ancora chiusa. Ci troviamo ancora nella stessa precarietà”. Anche Oliviero Forti della Caritas è dello stesso parere: “I nuovi capitolati d’appalto hanno ribassato gli importi destinati all’accoglienza nei centri di accoglienza straordinaria (Cas), ma non solo. A fronte di un minor costo, sono stati anche previsti minori servizi, trasformando le accoglienze da percorsi di integrazione a meri servizi di albergaggio. Questa situazione ha portato moltissimi enti del terzo settore a scegliere di non partecipare ai bandi sia come scelta dettata dalla non accettazione di un simile modello di accoglienza, sia​ per la non sostenibilità economica di questo sistema”.

      https://www.internazionale.it/reportage/annalisa-camilli/2019/11/12/trieste-frontiera-muro

    • Réfugiés en Slovénie : de plus en plus de passages, de plus en plus d’arrestations

      Depuis le début du mois de juillet, des #patrouilles_mixtes italo-slovènes contrôlent la frontière entre les deux pays, comptant sur les dénonciations de la population locale pour arrêter les exilés, toujours plus nombreux à tenter de rejoindre l’Italie.


      Depuis le printemps 2019, la police slovène constate une hausse constante des passages depuis la Croatie. Selon InfoMigrants (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/20830/slovenie-des-patrouilles-de-police-quotidiennes-pour-intercepter-les-m, les autorités slovènes ont relevé 14’000 traversées illégales sur leur sol entre le 1er janvier et le 30 octobre 2019, contre 8200 à la même période en 2018. « Entre le 4 et le 10 novembre, 124 migrants ont été arrêtés par les patrouilleurs, dont une majorité de Syriens, de Pakistanais et de Marocains », rapporte la journaliste Charlotte Boitiaux. La police explique compter sur les signalements de la population civile, invitée à dénoncer les mouvements « suspects ».

      Parmi les nationalités enregistrées, la police slovène note une hausse du nombre des Marocains et des Algériens (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/20911/de-plus-en-plus-d-algeriens-et-de-marocains-passent-par-la-route-des-b), qui empruntent la route des Balkans depuis la Turquie, où leurs passeports bénéficient d’un régime de visa favorable. Surtout, le passage par les Balkans coûte moins cher et est moins risqué qu’un transport à travers la mer Méditerranée.

      Ceux qui sont arrêtés font une demande d’asile en Slovénie pour éviter d’être expulsés vers la Croatie. « Ici, quand on demande l’asile, on a le droit à un toit, on peut dormir au chaud, et pas dans la forêt. Ça nous change de la Bosnie », explique Mohamed à InfoMigrants. Le seul centre du pays pour les demandeurs d’asile se trouve à Vič, près de Ljubljana, et peut héberger 200 personnes. Il est rarement plein. La grande majorité des résidents n’y restent que quelques jours, avant de « disparaître dans la nature » et de reprendre leur route vers l’Ouest.

      L’objectif reste de passer en Italie. « Ce n’est pas si dur que ça », explique Amir, interrogé par InfoMigrants. « Je me suis arrêté à Ljubljana, le temps de m’acheter des bonnes chaussures de marche, de trouver un manteau plus chaud et je vais repartir bientôt. » Amir veut rejoindre la France et la région de Bordeaux où il a de la famille. « On va passer par la forêt avec un ami, pas besoin de passeurs, on se repère et on se déplace avec nos GSM ». Entre la Slovénie et l’Italie, il n’y a pas de barbelés. Le passage est plus facile, affirment les migrants. « Le pire, c’est de passer la Croatie, les barbelés, les policiers violents, après ça va », affirme Amir.

      https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Slovenie-chaque-semaine-des-dizaines-de-migrants-arretes-a-la-fro
      #délation

    • Slovénie : des patrouilles de police quotidiennes pour intercepter les migrants à la frontière italienne (3/3)

      Depuis le mois de juillet, des patrouilles binationales de policiers italiens et slovènes ont été mises sur pied pour tenter d’enrayer le flux grandissant de migrants tentant de passer dans le pays transalpin. InfoMigrants a pu rencontrer la police slovène dans la ville de Koper, non loin de la ville italienne de Trieste, où chaque semaine, des dizaines de migrants sont arrêtés.

      Il est midi quand la patrouille commence à rebrousser chemin. La pluie tombe depuis plusieurs heures et le brouillard est omniprésent. Les deux policiers slovènes et la policière italienne rentrent sans « avoir vu personne ». La faute aux intempéries sûrement. « Tenter une traversée par ce temps, c’est plus compliqué, mais ça existe, évidemment », explique la policière italienne qui a commencé à patrouiller à 7h du matin – et qui prend la direction du commissariat de Koper, dernière ville slovène avant l’Italie, pour faire son rapport.

      La surveillance du jour a eu lieu dans les montagnes de Kastelec et de Socerb, à une dizaine de kilomètres au nord de Koper, du haut desquelles on aperçoit la petite commune italienne de San Dorligo. Cette fois-ci, donc, aucun migrant n’a été intercepté.

      Depuis le mois de juillet, des patrouilles binationales, italiennes et slovènes, ont fait leur début le long de leur frontière commune. Elles dureront au moins jusqu’à la fin septembre. Objectif affiché des deux pays : freiner l’immigration clandestine sur la route des Balkans, en direction de l’Italie et de l’ouest de l’Europe.

      Si, au plus fort de la crise migratoire, en 2015, des dizaines de milliers de migrants et réfugiés en provenance de Syrie, d’Irak ou encore d’Afghanistan, avaient emprunté cet itinéraire, le flux s’était tari ces trois dernières années. Mais depuis le printemps 2019, la Slovénie a vu le nombre des arrivées en provenance de la Croatie augmenter de nouveau.

      « Plus de 22% de hausse de tentatives de traversées de l’Italie dans la région par rapport à l’année dernière », précise Vicjem Toskan, l’un des chefs de la police de la ville de Koper. Et plus de 70 % sur l’ensemble du territoire. Les autorités ont en effet recensé 14 000 traversées illégales sur leur sol du 1er janvier au 30 octobre 2019, contre 8 200 à la même période en 2018.

      De plus en plus de Marocains et d’Algériens

      Parmi les personnes interceptées par la police, de nombreux Marocains et Algériens qui empruntent de plus en plus cette route des Balkans après avoir rallié la Turquie – qu’ils rejoignent grâce à des facilités de visa. « J’aurais pu passer par la mer pour aller du Maroc en Espagne, mais c’était trop cher. Le passeur me demandait plus de 5 000 euros », explique Amir* un migrant marocain croisé à Ljubljana. « Passer par les Balkans, ça me coûte presque rien ».

      Un autre, traumatisé par la mer Méditerranée, n’a pas voulu tenter la traversée maritime. « Mon frère est mort en essayant d’aller en Espagne dans un canot. Passer par la Turquie et les Balkans, c’est plus long, mais c’est moins dangereux », explique ce migrant, lui aussi marocain.

      Selon les chiffres des autorités slovènes, les migrants maghrébins font partie des nationalités les plus arrêtés – avec les Pakistanais et les Afghans. Face à cette réalité, la police dit « surveiller de près l’évolution de la situation et adapter ses activités en conséquence ».

      « Pas besoin de passeurs »

      Est-ce facile de rallier l’Italie ? « Ce n’est pas si dur que ça », répond Amir. « Je me suis arrêté à Ljubljana, le temps de me racheter des bonnes chaussures de marche, de trouver un manteau plus chaud et je vais repartir bientôt. » Amir veut rejoindre la France et la région de Bordeaux où il a de la famille. « On va passer par la forêt avec un ami, pas besoin de passeurs, on se repère et on se déplace avec nos GSM ».

      De ce côté-ci du pays, pas de barbelés. Le passage est plus facile, affirment les migrants. « Le pire, c’est de passer la Croatie, les barbelés, les policiers violents, après ça va », affirme Amir. Le gouvernement slovène a écarté la possibilité d’installer une clôture à sa frontière ouest, comme l’avaient suggéré récemment plusieurs responsables politiques italiens. Mais les autorités n’ont pas lésiné sur les moyens déployés à la frontière italienne pour empêcher les migrants de passer. Des vidéos surveillances et des drones sont utilisés pour aider les forces de l’ordre.


      https://twitter.com/chaboite/status/1194641459384913920

      Dans la forêt qui recouvre une large partie de la frontière sloveno-italienne, les policiers s’appuient aussi sur les signalements des civils. « On reçoit parfois des coups de fils des habitants de la région. Ils nous disent quand ils croient apercevoir quelque chose d’inhabituel dans la montagne à tel ou tel endroit ».

      Les « techniques » de passage varient selon les saisons. « L’été, on remarque que les migrants marchent davantage. L’hiver, ils tentent de passer la frontière dans des voitures, des vans, des camionnettes. Il y a des passages parfois la nuit. Le plus souvent, ils marchent une dizaine de jours pour rallier Velika Kledusha, en Bosnie, à Trieste, en Italie ».

      124 personnes arrêtées en une semaine

      En fonction de tous ces paramètres, les patrouilles changent souvent de lieux et d’horaires. « Evidemment, on ne vous dira rien à ce sujet », sourit le commandant de police.

      Amir ne connaissait pas l’existence de patrouilles binationales. Mais il n’a pas l’air stressé par leur existence. « Il y a toujours des contrôles à une frontière, c’est comme ça ».

      La police slovène se dit, elle, satisfaite de ce dispositif. « Hier [le 12 novembre], nous avons intercepté 12 migrants qui tentaient de passer en Italie, ils étaient répartis dans trois voitures de passeurs », précise Vicjem Toskan, le commandant de police de Koper. « Et dans la semaine du 4 au 10 novembre, nous avons arrêté 124 personnes. Nos patrouilles ne font pas de miracles, mais, pour l’heure, force est de constater qu’elles ont fait leur preuve et qu’elles sont efficaces ».

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/20830/slovenie-des-patrouilles-de-police-quotidiennes-pour-intercepter-les-m