https://www.tagesschau.de

  • Klingbeil zum Angriff in Dresden « Es braucht eine klare Antwort des Rechtsstaates »
    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/interview-klingbeil-angriff-ecke-100.html

    A cause de la présence d’extrémistes de droite dans les sevices secrets la gauche allemande est menacé par des commandos jouissant d’impunité judiciaire. A Berlin la police politique fait tout pour éviter l’identification des responsables d’attentats contre des politiciens de gauche. Avec la politique belliciste en Allemagne arrive une reconfiguration de l’état bourgeois démocratique dans un système qu’on pourra qualifier d’état fasciste ou bonapartiste.

    Ce fonctionnaire d’un parti plus de gauche du tout se plaint car un commandod’ extrémistres de droite a pris un des siens pour une cible de gauche. Il revendique des mesures de protection contre les attentats qui contribuent à cette transformation autoritaire.

    SPD-Chef Klingbeil zeigt sich schockiert von dem Angriff auf seinen Parteifreund Ecke in Dresden. Im Gespräch mit tagesschau.de fordert er mehr Schutz für Politiker - und konsequentes Vorgehen gegen Feinde der Demokratie.

    tagesschau.de: Attacken auf Wahlkämpfende nehmen zu - ist das eine neue Qualität von Gewalt im Wahlkampf?

    Lars Klingbeil: Wir sind alle zutiefst geschockt von der Nachricht, dass Matthias Ecke angegriffen wurde, dass er jetzt im Krankenhaus liegt, dass er operiert werden muss. Für mich ist das eine neue Qualität. Deswegen muss jetzt schnell aufgeklärt werden: Diejenigen, die diesen Angriff zu verantworten haben, müssen zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. Wir müssen jetzt sehr klar machen, dass alle, die für Demokratie unterwegs sind, geschützt werden.

    tagesschau.de: Was bedeutet das konkret?

    Klingbeil: Es braucht eine klare, unmissverständliche Antwort des Rechtsstaates. Da sind die Innenministerinnen und Innenminister der Länder jetzt auch mit in der Pflicht, zu überlegen, wie man Demokratinnen und Demokraten in den gerade stattfindenden Wahlkämpfen unterstützen und schützen kann. Und auch zu zeigen, dass konsequent gegen die Feinde der Demokratie vorgegangen wird: gegen diejenigen, die Menschen davon abhalten wollen, friedlich Werbung für demokratische Parteien zu machen. Da braucht es jetzt wirklich einen Ruck, der durch das Land geht. Und alle müssen laut werden, die wollen, dass unsere Demokratie verteidigt wird.

    tagesschau.de: Wie erklären Sie sich die steigende Gewalt gegen Politikerinnen und Politiker?

    Klingbeil: Wir erleben seit geraumer Zeit Verschärfungen dieser Art. Ich glaube, dass wir da als Staat Antworten darauf geben müssen. Dass wir den Schutz der Politikerinnen und Politiker hochfahren müssen - und zwar gerade derjenigen, die ehrenamtlich unterwegs sind. Und diejenigen müssen dingfest gemacht werden, die dafür verantwortlich sind - egal, ob sie diejenigen sind, die auf der Straße angreifen. Oder ob sie diejenigen sind, die mit Worten dafür sorgen, dass es ein gesellschaftliches Klima gibt, das so einen Vorfall wie vergangene Nacht eben doch befördert.

    tagesschau.de: Was hat sich geändert, dass es vermehrt zu solchen Vorfällen kommt?

    Klingbeil: Wir erleben seit einigen Jahren, dass auch politische Kräfte herablassend, herabwürdigend, diskriminierend, über Politik, über Demokratie reden, dass ein Klima der Angst geschaffen wird. Dass es Vertreterinnen und Vertreter beispielsweise auch der AfD gibt, die offen dazu auffordern, andere Politiker zu jagen. Und dann sind das vielleicht nicht diejenigen, die so eine Tat unmittelbar zu verantworten haben.

    Aber es wird ein gesellschaftliches Klima geschaffen, in dem Hass und Hetze auf einmal normal werden. Ein Klima, in dem Menschen sich aufgestachelt fühlen, gegen Politikerinnen und Politiker vorzugehen. Das wird gezielt von Rechtsextremen, von rechtspopulistischen Kräften geschaffen. Man muss sich das einmal deutlich machen: Es wurden in der Nacht in Dresden lediglich Wahlplakate für eine demokratische Partei aufgehängt - das war der Grund für diese Attacke.

    tagesschau.de: Wo ist diese Entwicklung für die SPD als Partei spürbar?

    Klingbeil: Wir merken das in der Parteizentrale, dass sich bei uns immer wieder Kolleginnen und Kollegen melden und berichten, attackiert, bedroht oder verfolgt worden zu sein. Und das erleben die anderen demokratischen Parteien ja auch. Es gab vergangene Woche Angriffe auch auf Vertreterinnen und Vertreter der Grünen - es gibt das bei allen demokratischen Parteien. Das ist ein gesellschaftliches Problem. Und deswegen braucht es eine gesellschaftliche Antwort.

    tagesschau.de: Die Zahlen von Angriffen gegen die Politik sind im vergangenen Jahr konstant gestiegen. Was kann zum Schutz von Politikerinnen und Politikern vor Ort getan werden?

    Klingbeil: Da müssen verschiedene Maßnahmen zusammenkommen. Da geht es um Polizeischutz bei Veranstaltungen. Da geht es auch um die Frage, an wen sich Menschen, die bedroht sind, wenden können. Wenn etwas passiert, wie schnell und konsequent wird das aufgeklärt? Das alles muss jetzt sehr schnell auch unter den Innenministern der Bundesländer besprochen werden. Aber heute, an einem Tag, wo diese schockierende Nachricht uns erreicht hat, geht es erst einmal um Solidarität. Geht es auch darum klarzumachen, wir verurteilen diesen Angriff aufs Schärfste. Nicht, dass so etwas in unserem Land passiert und man das vielleicht schulterzuckend hinnimmt.

    tagesschau.de: Wie ist die Stimmung insgesamt an der Basis, Gibt es Ängste?

    Klingbeil: Ich kann bisher nicht feststellen, dass das Engagement schwindet. Aber natürlich machen sich die Wahlkämpfenden Sorgen und Gedanken: Wenn man unterwegs ist, wenn man Wahlplakate aufhängt und an Infoständen bedroht wird. Junge Kommunalpolitikerinnen und -politiker erzählen mir, in dem Moment, wo sie beispielsweise etwas bei einer Wahlkampfveranstaltung gegen die AfD sagen, haben sie am nächsten Tag einen Galgen gemalt auf Papier im Briefkasten. Das verändert unsere demokratische Kultur. Und genau deswegen ist es so wichtig, dass wir das nicht hinnehmen, dass wir nicht schweigen, dass wir das nicht einfach akzeptieren, dass es diese Verrohung der politischen Sitten gibt. Sondern dass alle Demokratinnen und Demokraten jetzt laut sind und aufstehen. Und dass wir gemeinsam etwas gegen diese politische Gewalt und die Einschüchterungsversuche tun.

    Die Fragen stellte Corinna Emundts, tagesschau.de

    #Allemagne #politique #droite #extrême_droite

  • Andreas Scheuer gründet Beratungsunternehmen
    https://www.der-postillon.com/2024/04/scheuer-beratungsunternehmen.html

    Die Firma gibt es wirklich - siehe Grafik weiter unten.

    3.4.2024 - Berlin (dpo) - Die Welt der Berater wird ordentlich aufgewirbelt: Wie der „Business Insider“ berichtet, hat Ex-Bundesverkehrsminister Andreas Scheuer eine eigene Beratungsfirma gegründet.

    Mit der „Tancredis GmbH“ will der CSU-Politiker, der einst innerhalb eines Jahres fast 50 Millionen Euro für Berater ausgab, künftig „Unternehmensberatungsleistungen und zugehörige Dienstleistungen“ erbringen.

    Für Unternehmen gibt es dabei viel zu profitieren, denn in wirtschaftlichen Angelegenheiten gilt Scheuer als Koryphäe. Zuletzt gelang es ihm als Bundesverkehrsminister quasi im Alleingang, die Zahlung von 243 Millionen Euro öffentlicher Gelder an private Mautbetreiber zu erwirken.

    Links

    Der Spiegel: Scheuer gab 2019 fast 49 Millionen Euro für Berater aus
    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/verkehrsinisterium-andreas-scheuer-gibt-fast-49-millionen-fuer-berater-aus-a

    Tagesschau: Bund zahlt 243 Millionen Euro Schadensersatz
    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/pkw-maut-bund-schadensersatz-100.html

    #Korruption #Drehtür #Wirtschaft #CSU #Politik #Verkehrspolitik

  • "Wie ein zweiter Tod"

    Am griechisch-türkischen Grenzfluss Evros enden Versuche, in die EU zu gelangen, immer wieder mit dem Tod. Die Verstorbenen werden oft spät gefunden und bleiben namenlos - ein Trauma für die Angehörigen.

    Am 17. Oktober 2022 überquert die 22-jährige Suhur den Evros, den Grenzfluss zwischen der Türkei und Griechenland. Ein Schlepper verspricht der Frau aus Somalia, sie bis nach Thessaloniki zu bringen. Auf der griechischen Seite angekommen, geht es schnell weiter durch einen Wald.

    Doch Suhur hat starke Bauchschmerzen, nach einigen Kilometern kann sie nicht mehr weiterlaufen. Die anderen aus der Gruppe lassen sie alleine zurück, ihre Freundin verspricht Hilfe zu suchen. Doch dazu dazu kommt es nicht. Tage später findet die Polizei ihre Leiche.

    Es ist Suhurs Onkel Fahti, der ihre Geschichte erzählt, nachdem er ihre Leiche im Universitätskrankenhaus in Alexandroupoli identifiziert hat.
    Engmaschige Kontrollen entlang des Ufers

    Suhur ist eine von vielen Menschen, die versuchen, über den Evros zu gelangen, um Europa zu erreichen. Der Fluss markiert eine Außengrenze der Europäischen Union. Entlang der griechischen Uferseite allerdings wird engmaschig kontrolliert, regelmäßig sind unterschiedliche Polizeieinheiten in der Gegend unterwegs.

    In der Grenzzone selbst ist der Zutritt streng verboten, nur mit Sondererlaubnis darf man in die Nähe des Flusses gehen. Seit 2020 wird ein Grenzzaun errichtet, 38 Kilometer ist er bereits lang, er soll Migranten von einem illegalen Übertritt abhalten.

    Weiterhin traurige Rekorde

    Doch offenbar verfehlen die Maßnahmen ihre erwünschte Wirkung. So erreichten allein im Jahr 2022 laut UNHCR 6022 Flüchtlinge über den Landweg Griechenland, das sind ähnlich hohe Zahlen wie vor der Verschärfung der Kontrollen.

    Einen traurigen Rekord stellt die Zahl der Toten auf, die gefunden werden. Mindestens 63 Menschen sind nach offiziellen Angaben auf der Flucht gestorben, die tatsächlichen Zahlen dürften noch deutlich höher liegen.

    https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/sendung/tagesthemen/video-1153371.html

    Ein Rechtsmediziner zählt die Toten

    In Alexandroupoli, auf griechischer Seite, arbeitet Pavlos Pavlidis als Rechtsmediziner der Region. Jeder am Evros gefundene tote Flüchtling wird von ihm obduziert.

    Pavlidis führt Protokoll über die Anzahl der Toten am Evros. Auch der tote Körper der Somalierin Suhur wurde ihm aus einem Waldstück nahe des Flusses gebracht.

    Aus London angereist, um die Nichte zu identifizieren

    Nun sitzt ihr Onkel Fahti auf einem Sofa in seinem Büro. Sie sei eine wunderschöne Frau gewesen, sagt er. Fathi ist aus London angereist, um seine Nichte zu identifizieren.

    Die Freundin von Suhur, so erzählt es Fathi, habe sich der griechischen Polizei gestellt, um sie zu der schwer erkrankten Suhur zu führen. Doch die Polizei habe nicht nach ihr gesucht, und die Freundin sofort zurück in die Türkei abgeschoben.

    Verifizieren lässt sich diese Version der Geschehnisse nicht mehr. Die „Push-Back“-Praxis, das Abschieben von Migranten ohne Verfahren, wurde offiziell nie von der griechischen Regierung bestätigt.Trotzdem gibt es viele ähnliche Berichte von Betroffenen.

    Rechtsmediziner Pavlidis hat Suhurs toten Körper obduziert und kommt zu dem Ergebnis: Die junge Frau habe auf der Flucht einen Magendurchbruch erlitten, voraussichtlich hervorgerufen durch großen Stress. Am Ende sei sie an einer Sepsis gestorben. Durch Erschöpfung hervorgerufene Krankheiten seien eine häufige Todesursache am Evros, die häufigste aber Ertrinken im Fluss.

    Viel Flüchtlinge können kaum schwimmen

    Pavlidis sagt, die Verantwortung für die vielen Toten trügen zunächst die Schlepper, die die Schlauchboote völlig überladen, so, dass sie schnell kenterten. Viele Flüchtlinge könnten kaum schwimmen, so werde der Fluss zur Gefahr für ihr Leben.

    Die Flüchtlinge selbst unterschätzen offenbar die Gefährlichkeit der Überfahrt. Aber auch die strenge Abschirmung der Grenze bedeutet für sie eine Gefahr. Um den Grenzschützern auszuweichen, schlagen sie immer gefährlichere Routen ein.

    Wer aufgegriffen wird, muss Angst haben, abgeschoben zu werden. Verletzt sich einer aus der Gruppe, muss dieser damit rechnen, alleine zurückgelassen zu werden. Denn Hilfe zu holen, würde für alle bedeuten, dass ihre teuer bezahlte Flucht erst einmal gestoppt ist.

    Aktuell 52 ungeklärte Todesfälle

    Immer wieder findet die Polizei Tote also auch in den bewaldeten Bergen entlang des Flusses. Die Leichen sind schon nach wenigen Tagen kaum noch zu identifizieren. Pavlidis versucht es trotzdem, sucht nach Todesursache und Todeszeitpunkt und nach Antworten auf die Frage, wer ist dieser Mensch war.

    Aktuell erzählt Pavlidis von 52 ungeklärten Fällen. Hinter jedem einzelnen stünden Angehörige, die diese Menschen vermissten. Die Identität zu verlieren, sei wie ein zweiter Tod, sagt der Rechtsmediziner.

    Etwa 200 Grabsteine erinnern an die namenlosen Toten

    Um den namenlosen Toten eine letzte Ruhestätte zu geben, entstand in dem in den Bergen, nahe der Gemeinde Sidiro, ein Friedhof, der ihnen gewidmet ist. Etwa 200 Grabsteine stehen hier auf einer leichten Anhöhe. Auf den Platten stehen Nummern. Pavlidis führt eine Liste mit den entsprechenden Nummern in seinem Büro.

    Falls doch irgendwann ein Angehöriger zu ihm käme und mit Hilfe einer DNA-Probe einen Toten identifiziere, könne der auf dem Friedhof der Namenlosen ausgegraben und umgebettet werden.

    Im Fall der Somalierin Suhur ist Pavlidis eine Identifizierung gelungen. Ihr Onkel Fathi lebte wochenlang mit der Ungewissheit, was seiner Nichte geschehen sein könnte.

    Nachdem er bei der griechischen Polizei eine Suchanzeige abgegeben hat, lebt er nun mit der brutalen Gewissheit, dass Suhur gestorben ist. Wenigstens habe er nun Klarheit, sagt er, so dass seine Familie und er nun von Suhur Abschied nehmen könnten.

    https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio-154699.html
    https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/eu-aussengrenze-migration-101.html

    #frontières #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #Evros #fleuve #Turquie #Grèce #Pavlos_Pavlidis #cimetière #migrations #asile #réfugiés #identification #murs #barrières_frontalières

  • Europe’s Nameless Dead

    As more people try to reach Western Europe through the Balkans, taking increasingly dangerous routes to evade border police, many are dying without a trace

    When hundreds of thousands of refugees crossed through the Balkans in 2015, border controls were limited and there were few fences or walls. The route was largely open.

    After several years of lull, the number of people making this journey recently increased again. Last year saw the highest number of crossings since 2015, predominantly due to ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and hostile treatment of refugees in Turkey.

    But the Balkan route has changed in the last eight years. With the help of funding from both the EU and the UK, countries in the Balkans have erected fences and built walls. When border police catch people seeking asylum, they often force them back over the border.

    Subsequently, those making the journey often take longer and more dangerous routes in order to evade the police – and the consequences can be deadly; people are freezing to death in forests, drowning in rivers or dying from sheer exhaustion.

    There is no official data on the number of dead and missing migrants in the Balkans. Efforts that have been made to collect data – for example the IOM’s Missing Migrants Project – are based mostly on media reports and are likely to be significantly underestimated.

    With RFE/RL, Der Spiegel, ARD, the i newspaper, Solomon and academics from Aston, Liverpool and Nottingham Universities, we sought to measure the scale of migrant deaths at the borders of a commonly trodden route spanning Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia. Crucially, we sought to find out what subsequently happens to the bodies of these people and what their families go through trying to find them.

    We found that the hostility people face at the borders of Europe in life continues into death. State authorities make little to no effort to identify dead migrants or inform their families, while individual doctors, NGO workers and activists do what they can to fill in the gaps. Unidentified bodies end up piled in morgues or buried without a trace.
    METHODS

    It was clear from the outset that it would be impossible to get comprehensive numbers on migrant deaths, given some bodies will never be found, particularly when people have drowned in rivers or died deep in forests.

    In Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia, we requested data from police departments, prosecutors’ offices, courts and morgues on how many unidentified bodies they had recorded in recent years. While some provided information, most failed to respond or declined to disclose the data.

    But through this process we managed to obtain data on the number of bodies known or presumed to be migrants received by six morgues near the borders along the Bulgaria-Serbia-Bosnia route. We found 155 such cases across the six facilities since the start of 2022 – the majority (92) dying this year alone.

    By speaking with forensic pathologists in Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia, we found that in each of the three countries, the legal protocol is that an autopsy must be performed on all unidentified bodies – but what happens next is less clear. Information on the deceased is fragmented and held across different institutions, with no unified system which proactively seeks to connect them with families looking for them.

    Through interviews with more than a dozen people whose family members had gone missing or died along the route, we learnt that they are left with no idea where to look or who to ask. We found WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages connecting networks of concerned families, desperately sharing photos and information about their lost loved ones. Some NGOs in Bulgaria and Serbia said they are contacted about such cases every day.

    In some cases when families approached Burgas morgue in south-eastern Bulgaria – where we recorded the highest number of migrant bodies – they were told by staff that they could only check the bodies if they paid them cash bribes. This was confirmed by multiple testimonies and NGOs operating in the area.
    STORYLINES

    RFE/RL followed the case of one Syrian father’s search for his son. Husam Adin Bibars, a refugee in Denmark, travelled to Bulgaria after his son, Majd Addin Bibars, went missing there while trying to reach Western Europe.

    After a day and a half of asking different institutions, Bibars was directed to a local police station near the Turkish border – where he was shown a photo of Majd’s lifeless body. He was told he had died of thirst, exhaustion and cold – and that he had been buried four days after his body was found.

    In an interview with ARD, the prosecutor in Yambol, a Bulgarian city close to the Turkish border, near where Majd was buried, said his body was buried after four days in keeping with their procedure of carrying out burials of unidentified migrants “fast” to free up space in the morgue.

    Some 900 kilometres away in Bosnia, iNews spoke to Dr Vidak Simić, a forensic pathologist responsible for performing autopsies on bodies found in the Drina River, which runs along the Serbian border. He said that in 2023 alone, he had examined 28 bodies presumed to be migrants, compared with five last year. The vast majority remain unidentified and are now buried in graves marked ‘NN’ – an abbreviation for a Latin term for a person with no name.

    The doctor is now working with local activist Nihad Suljić to try to help families find their missing loved ones, by checking his autopsy files to see if any unidentified bodies match the description of missing people. But he says a proper system needs to be put in place for this. “[Families] enter a painstaking process, through embassies, burial organisations, to obtain a bone sample, so that they can compare it with one of their family members,” he says.

    https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/europes-nameless-dead

    #mourir_aux_frontières #frontières #morts_aux_frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #décès #morts #Balkans #route_des_Balkans #visualisation #cartographie

    ping @reka

    • Sie erfrieren in Wäldern, ertrinken in Flüssen

      Europas namenlose Tote: Viele Flüchtende, die auf der Balkanroute sterben, werden nie identifiziert. Angehörige suchen verzweifelt nach Gewissheit – manche müssen sich den Zugang zu Leichenhallen erkaufen. Der SPIEGEL-Report.

      (#paywall)

      https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/vermisste-fluechtlinge-auf-der-balkanroute-europas-namenlose-tote-a-5d0b55a7

    • Namenloser Tod in Bulgarien

      An der türkisch-bulgarischen Grenze endet der Versuch von Migranten, in die EU zu kommen, oft in tödlicher Erschöpfung. Die Behörden begraben die Leichen schnell - ohne Identifizierung. Für die Angehörigen ist das ein weiteres Trauma.

      Das Porträt hängt zwischen den Fenstern im ansonsten schmucklosen Wohnzimmer. Wenn Hussam Adin Bibars es von der Wand nimmt, um es zu zeigen, wirkt es, als würde er eine Bürde tragen.

      Der gut aussehende junge Mann mit den blauen Augen und dem akkurat gestutzten, schwarzen Bart auf dem Foto ist sein Sohn. Das letzte Lebenszeichen von ihm kam im Herbst. Majid hatte sich auf den Weg gemacht, um zu seiner Familie zu ziehen. Sein Vater war bereits im Jahr 2015 aus Syrien geflohen und lebt heute in Dänemark.

      Um seinen Plan in die Tat umzusetzen, musste Majid über die berüchtigte Balkanroute, die in den vergangenen Jahren immer gefährlicher geworden ist. Die Außengrenzen werden strenger bewacht, Geflüchtete und ihre Schleuser wählen längere und gefährlichere Routen, um ein Aufeinandertreffen mit der Polizei zu vermeiden.

      Verloren im „Dreieck des Todes“

      Der Weg führt an der türkisch-bulgarischen Grenze durch dichte, endlose Wälder. „Dreieck des Todes“ nennen sie das Gebiet hier, weil dort besonders viele tote Körper gefunden wurden. Immer wieder verirren sich Flüchtlinge, sterben an Dehydrierung und Erschöpfung.

      Oft sind es Mitarbeiter von NGOs wie Diana Dimova, die die Toten finden. Vergangenes Jahr hätten sie zehn bis zwölf Notrufe erreicht, erzählt sie, dieses Jahr habe sie schon nicht mehr zählen können, es seien aber auf jeden Fall mehr als 70 gewesen.

      Nach Recherchen des ARD-Studios Wien in Kooperation mit Lighthouse Reports, dem Spiegel, RFE/RL, Solomon und inews starben allein in den vergangenen zwei Jahren mindestens 93 Menschen auf ihrem Weg durch Bulgarien.

      Dem Rechercheteam liegen zahlreiche Videos und Fotos Geflüchteter vor. Sie stehen neben ihren sterbenden Weggefährten, betten sie auf Jacken, versuchen sie zuzudecken und müssen sie schließlich auf dem Waldboden zurücklassen, der starre Blick eingefangen auf einem wackeligen Handyvideo.

      Wer zu schwach ist, wird zurückgelassen

      Hussam Adin Bibars erfährt, dass auch Majid nicht genug zu trinken hat. Er wird immer schwächer, berichtet von Bauchkrämpfen und kann nicht mehr weiterlaufen. Sein Vater macht sich Sorgen, versucht, mit dem Schleuser in Kontakt zu kommen.

      Der Schmuggler sagte, dass sich der Gesundheitszustand von Majid verschlechtert habe. Sie hätten ihn im Wald zurückgelassen. Ich habe versucht, ihm zu erklären, dass Majid ein Mensch ist und man ihn in so einem Zustand nicht einfach im Wald zurücklassen kann. Ich habe den Schmuggler gebeten, Majid an die nächstmögliche Behörde zu übergeben.

      Verzweifelte Suche in Bulgarien

      Als der Kontakt abbricht, macht Hussam sich auf eigene Faust auf die Suche. Er reist nach Bulgarien, klappert Krankenhäuser ab, schließlich auch Leichenhallen.

      In der Gerichtsmedizin in Yambol, einer Stadt im Südosten des Landes, findet er eine erste Spur, die ihn zu seinem Sohn führen könnte. Ein Körper, der zu seiner Beschreibung passt, sei dort gewesen, erzählt man ihm.

      Auf der Polizeistation zeigt man ihm schließlich Fotos, man habe den Leichnam auf einem Feld gefunden.

      Was bleibt: eine Grabnummer

      Hussam will seinen Sohn sehen und identifizieren, doch der Leichnam ist bereits weg. Die Polizei hat nur noch die Nummer eines Grabes für ihn. Für den Vater ist diese Nachricht kaum zu ertragen:

      Ich wünschte, ich hätte wenigstens die Chance, Majid ein letztes Mal zu sehen, aber bis heute bin ich mir über seinen Tod absolut unsicher. Ich habe zwar Fotos von ihm gesehen und sein Telefon erhalten, aber ich habe ihn nicht mit eigenen Augen gesehen, so dass mein Verstand immer noch nicht glauben kann, dass die Person in diesem Grab mein Sohn ist.

      Die Begründung der Staatsanwaltschaft

      Bevor der Körper überhaupt identifiziert werden konnte, hatte der Staatsanwalt ihn bereits zur Beerdigung freigegeben. Nach nur vier Tagen. Milen Bozidarov, einer der zuständigen Staatsanwälte für die Region verweist im Interview mit der ARD auf hygienische Gründe.

      Die Leichenhallen seien voll, jeder sei zur Eile angehalten. Wenn man davon ausgehen könne, die tote Person sei ein Migrant und die Angehörigen weit weg, dann gebe es keine sinnvollen Gründe, den Körper weiterhin aufzubewahren.

      Doch Majids Vater wollte seinen Sohn finden, die weite Anreise aus Dänemark hinderte ihn nicht an der Suche. 22 Tage nach seinem Tod war er in Bulgarien vor Ort. Da war es jedoch längst zu spät.

      Das einzige, was er noch besuchen konnte, war ein Erdhaufen auf einem Friedhof inmitten anderer namenloser Gräber.

      „Man will keine Aufmerksamkeit“

      Scharfe Kritik an dieser Praxis des schnellen Begrabens kommt von Anwalt Dragomir Oshavkov aus Burgas. Eigentlich dürfe es keinen Unterschied machen, ob der Tote ein Bulgare oder ein Migrant sei.

      Die Behörden hätten bei Migranten jedoch kein Interesse daran, die wahre Todesursache und die Identität herauszufinden, erzählt er. Man wolle den Prozess einfach schnell und möglichst bequem abschließen.

      Ein Verhalten, das für die EU unwürdig ist. So sieht es Erik Marquardt, der für die Grünen im Europaparlament sitzt und die Migrationspolitik der letzten Jahre genau verfolgt.

      Wenn man nach wenigen Tagen, ohne die Todesursache genau zu ermitteln, Menschen einfach verscharrt und sich nicht um die Angehörigen kümmert, dann will man offenbar nicht, dass die Aufmerksamkeit auf diese Fälle kommt.

      Marquardt bringt die Einführung einer EU-Datenbank ins Spiel und eine Verpflichtung der Mitgliedstaaten, bei der Auffindung von Verwandten mitzuwirken.

      Ein Kind ohne Vater

      Für viele Menschen ist der Weg über die Balkanroute inzwischen tödlich - und endet in einem namenlosen Grab. Auch für Majid.

      Wenige Tage nach seinem Tod kommt Majids Tochter zur Welt. Hussam, der Großvater, zeigt ein Video, auf dem die Kleine unter einer weiß-blauen Samtmütze hervor blinzelt. Sie wird bei ihrer Mutter aufwachsen.

      Wo und wie ihr Vater genau gestorben ist, wird sie niemals erfahren.

      https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio-177358.html

      https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/bulgarien-migranten-todesfaelle-100.html

      #Bulgarie #Turquie

    • "Ничии тела". Как стотици хора загинаха в бягството си през България

      През България минава път, който не е на картата и е все по-смъртоносен. По него вървят мигрантите, тръгнали за Западна Европа. Някои умират по пътя. После близките им ги търсят сред хаос и корупция. Разследване на Свободна Европа, Lighthouse Reports, The I Newspaper, Solomon, Der Spiegel и ARD.

      “Това е синът ми!”, възкликва със стегнат в гърлото глас 53-годишният сириец от Алепо Хусам Ал-Дийн Бибарс. Дежурният полицай в Елхово му показва снимка на очевидно мъртъв млад мъж със сиво-черни дрехи. На снимката той лежи в пръстта в землището на село Мелница, Ямболска област.

      Само ден по-рано бащата е пристигнал в България от Дания, където живее, с надеждата да открие безследно изчезналия си син Мажд, на 27 години. Екипът ни съпровожда бащата в това търсене.

      Още 22 дни по-рано Мажд е преминал нелегално българо-турската граница с група, водена от трафиканти. Платил е 7000 евро на каналджиите, за да достигне до заветната дестинация - Германия, където мечтае да се установи с жена си и малката си дъщеря.

      Хусам е чул сина си за последен път ден преди началото на фаталното пътуване. “Как си татко, добре ли си със здравето?” - пита Мажд.
      Хусам и снимката

      “На първата снимка не беше той. На втората обаче беше. Когато го видях, се сринах на земята”, каза бащата. От полицията му обясняват, че синът му е починал от преумора и че по тялото му няма следи от насилие.

      Първоначалната мисъл на Хусам Бибарс е да вземе тялото на Мажд и да го погребе у дома, в Сирия или в Турция, при семейството му. Тази надежда бързо бива попарена. Разбираме, че младият мъж вече е погребан служебно в безименен гроб в Елхово с постановление на окръжен прокурор от Ямбол. Документът е издаден едва 4 дни след като тракторист случайно е намерил тялото му и звъни в полицията.

      “Слушаме, че Европа е земя на свобода, демокрация и човешки права. Но къде са човешките права в това да не мога да видя сина си преди да бъде погребан? Видях единствено гроба му, снимките и телефона му. Това е всичко, което имам от него”, казва бащата.
      Един от стотици загинали

      Мажд Бибарс е един от стотиците бежанци от Близкия изток, изгубили живота си в последните години, докато минават по т.нар. Балкански маршрут в опит да намерят закрила в Европа.

      По данни на европейската гранична агенция Frontex, през 2022 г. броят на опитите за преминаване на европейските граници достига до пиковите равнища от 2016 г., като почти половината от тях, или 145 000 души, са минали именно през Югоизточна Европа.

      Обикновено смъртта по европейските граници се свързва с трагичните корабокрушения по бреговете на Средиземно море. Но различни доклади, като проекта Missing Migrants на Международната организация по миграция показват, че сухопътният маршрут през Балканите става все по-опасен.

      В продължение на повече от седем месеца екип от журналисти на Lighthouse reports, Der Spiegel, ARD, Свободна Европа и Inews проследи и документира десетки случаи на мигранти, безследно изчезнали или изгубили живота си в опит да преминат през три държави от т.нар. Балкански маршрут - България, Сърбия и Босна и Херцеговина.

      За семействата им процесът по издирване се оказва истински кошмар. Ако се окаже, че мигрантът е загинал, те трябва да идентифицират и евентуално да репатрират тялото му, или да го погребат в България.

      Само че на национално и на международно ниво няма нито единен, нито адекватен отговор на техните въпроси. Независимо от разрастващия се мащаб на проблема, роднините на загинали и изчезнали мигранти се сблъскват с липса на информация, незаинтересованост и тромави административни процедури. А ако действието се развива в България - и с корупция в бургаската морга, където се озовава най-големият брой от телата за загиналите.
      “Лавинообразен” ръст на изчезналите и загиналите

      “Често се случва да получа обаждане в полунощ от човек (...), който, на развален английски директно ме пита: Можете ли да намерите брат ми?”, разказва Калинка Янкова от Службата за възстановяване на семейни връзки към Българския червен кръст.

      “Най-много ни мотивира това да намираме хората живи. Но напоследък рядко имаме този късмет”, допълва тя.

      Янкова и екипът й разполагат с 631 сигнала за предполагаемо загинали през тази година и още стотици молби за издирване на изчезнали мигранти, подадени от роднините им. Към момента имат установени около 20 смъртни случая, в които са съдействали на семействата за идентифициране на починалите им близки. Сред тях има и деца.

      “Всичко започна през септември миналата година и оттогава случаите нараснаха лавинообразно”, казва Янкова.

      Думите й се потвърждават и от данните на правозащитната организация Фондация “Достъп до права”, или ФАР, която само за месеците септември и октомври 2023 г. е получила на своя спешен телефон 70 сигнала за изчезнали на територията на страната мигранти. За трима от тях по-късно разбират, че са починали в горите около град Средец.

      “В около 95 процента от случаите това са роднини, които се свързват с нас, посочвайки България, като държава, в която те за последен път са се чули с лицето”, казаха от ФАР.

      В останалите около 5 процента лично трафикантите подават сигнали за бедстващи хора, но това се случва часове след като човекът е бил изоставен, за да се избегне рискът от това служители на гранична полиция да задържат групата или да я върнат в Турция - практика, за която ви разказахме в последните ни разследвания. Основните места, където се намират лицата, са в горите около Средец и планината “Странджа” - район, печално известен още от времето на комунистическите гранични войски като“триъгълника на смъртта”.

      Но реално черната статистика е доста по-голяма. Само за периода 2022-2023 г. в моргата към УМБАЛ Бургас, която е и най-натоварената заради близостта си до турската граница, са съхранявани общо 54 тела на мигранти. 31 от тях са намерени от началото на тази година. Проверките ни в граничните райони до Турция и Сърбия установиха поне 93 смъртни случаи с мигранти на територията на страната за последните две години.

      Екипът ни документира други 62 случая от Сърбия и Босна и Херцеговина за същия период, с което трагичните инциденти по тази част от Балканския маршрут, установени само в рамките на това разследване, достигнаха 155.

      В местните медии темата е сведена до сензационни заглавия от типа на “Моргата в Бургас се препълни” или “Странджа е осеяна с трупове”. Ние решихме да проследим историите зад числата, причините за големия брой трагични инциденти и начините, по които институциите се справят с тях.
      В търсене на изчезналите роднини

      Мохамад Мудасир Арианпур е гордостта на семейството си. Служи в афганистанската армия, докато талибаните не вземат отново властта през 2021 г. Това прави живота му у дома невъзможен.

      На 21 септември 2022 г. Мохамад прекосява турско-българската граница с група от 26 други мигранти, водени от двама трафиканти. На 25 септември младият мъж губи сили и не може да продължи пътя през горите на Странджа. Негови приятели виждат, че се намират близо до село и му оставят две бутилки с вода с надеждата, че скоро ще бъде намерен и предаден на българските власти.

      Оттогава никой няма връзка с него.

      В следващите месеци негови роднини, живеещи в Западна Европа, посещават България няколко пъти, обикалят полицейски управления, бежански центрове, болници и морги, но опитите им да го открият не се увенчават с успех.

      Отчаяното търсене ги среща и с други семейства, сполетени от същата съдба. Сестра му Фатме Арианпур решава да създаде Whatsapp група, в която всички си помагат и обменят информация.

      “Намерихме се в различни групи във Фейсбук и разбрахме, че сме толкова много хора в една и съща ситуация”, разказва Фатме. “Надявам се, че като говорим за тези неща, ще успеем да променим нещо. Независимо дали са живи или мъртви, хората имат права”, допълва тя.

      Именно в създадената от нея група, както и в други подобни срещнахме основния герой на историята ни - Хусам Бибарс, както и други семейства, с които разговаряхме.

      Поне четирима от интервюираните ни казаха, че при посещенията си в моргата в УМБАЛ Бургас са плащали на служители на лечебното заведение, за да видят дали близките им не са сред съхраняваните там тела.

      Сумите, за които чухме, варираха между 50 лева и 200 евро на посещение.

      “В крайна сметка всички просто искат пари”, обобщи опита си Али, афганистански бежанец. Той прекарва месеци в България, опитвайки се да погребе 16-годишния си брат, като общо разходите му възлизат на над 8000 евро.
      50 лева

      Оплакванията от корупционни практики с тела на мигранти в моргата в Бургас не са нищо ново за работещите в правозащитния сектор.

      “Получавали сме информация и сигнали, че от семейства, открили мъртъв човек там, са били искани големи суми за потвърждение, че тялото е там, и за освобождаването му. Оплакват се, че са им били искани пари на всяка стъпка от процеса”, казва Георги Войнов, адвокат в бежанско-мигрантската служба на Българския хелзинкски комитет.

      За Калинка Янкова от БЧК новината за подобни форми на изнудване идва от близки на загинал афганистанец, които й споделят, че са платили над 100 евро, за да видят тялото на своя близък.

      “Бях извън себе си от възмущение.(...) Когато споделих с един колега, той ми каза: добре дошла в клуба”, добавя тя.

      Аудиофайл, с който екипът ни разполага, е и първото категорично потвърждение на тези твърдения. В него ясно се чува как служител на моргата в Бургас иска общо 100 лева от семейство, търсещо свой близък, заради това, че му е показал тела на починали мигранти в камерата.

      “Две по 50. Двама човека сме. Още едно 50”, инструктира той роднините, преди да ги насочи към процедура по разпознаване чрез ДНК.

      От УМБАЛ Бургас обясниха, че в лечебното заведение не е постъпвал нито един сигнал или жалба за подобни практики и обясниха, че идентификацията на телата се извършва само и единствено в присъствието на разследващ полицай и съдебен лекар.

      “Огромна част от телата са в състояние на напреднало разложение и е невъзможно да бъдат разпознати без ДНК експертиза, дори и да бъдат показани”, уточниха от болницата.

      “Апелираме подобни сигнали и оплаквания, да бъдат адресирани по официалния ред към нас и към разследващите органи. Ако се установи, че има подобни практики, служителите ще понесат съответната отговорност”, посочи още управлението на МБАЛ Бургас.
      “Ничии тела”

      В българския НПК процедурите по идентифициране на случайно намерени тела са едни и същи, независимо дали казусът засяга български или чужд гражданин. В подобни случаи прокуратурата започва досъдебно производство, което има две цели: да идентифицира лицето и да установи причината за смъртта. На жертвите се взема ДНК, което се съхранява, ако евентуално в бъдеще се появят близки, които искат да извършат разпознаване.

      Съвпадението на ДНК е задължително за освобождаване на тела от моргите или за евентуална ексхумация, което отнема около 3 месеца и допълнително усложнява процеса по репатриране на починалите. Към момента Хусам Бибарс вече над месец очаква резултатите от ДНК тест, за да може да получи важни документи за семейството на починалия си син.

      В случай, че самоличността на лицето не може да бъде установена и няма данни за насилствено причинена смърт, наблюдаващият прокурор може да издаде постановление за извършване на служебно погребение, което е в правомощията на съответната община.

      Чрез запитвания по Закона за достъп до обществена информация разбрахме, че през последните 4 години общините Бургас, Средец и Ямбол са извършили общо 14 служебни погребения, като основната част - 10, са били в Бургас.

      Тези данни се отнасят за всички неидентифицирани тела, но посещения на гробищните паркове ни дават основание да смятаме, че в болшинството от случаите става дума за мигранти. За сравнение, от най-голямата община в страната, столичната, в същия период не е извършено нито едно служебно погребение, разпоредено от прокурор.

      Остава отворен и въпросът защо от моргата в Бургас редовно идват оплаквания, че е препълнена с тела на неидентифицирани мигранти, някои от които престояват там с години, а случаи като този на Мажд Бибарс биват приключени за четири дни, повдигайки сериозни съмнения, че изобщо са били правени опити тялото да бъде идентифицирано.

      В отговор на наше запитване от Главната прокуратура ни увериха, че на централно ниво няма решение за по-бързо освобождаване на тела и това “не е възможно, тъй като наблюдаващите прокурори следва стриктно да спазват нормите на НПК”.

      “Ако близките не пожелаят да получат тялото и изрично заявят това, тогава се пристъпва към служебно погребение. Същото се налага да се извърши и когато не бъде установена самоличността на починалия – при обективно положени изчерпателни усилия за това или при случаи, когато се изясни, че починалият няма близки и роднини”, посочват прокурорите. Те подчертават, че при случаите с български граждани се действа по същия начин.

      Но Милен Божидаров, който е прокурор в Ямболската районна прокуратура, признава, че стремежът в неговия район е случаите да се приключват бързо.

      “Това е въпрос на организация на процеса, всички ние целим бързина”, заяви той.

      По думите на прокурора, при “обичайни обстоятелства” роднините на загинали се търсят и обикновено се установяват още в деня на смъртта.

      Но очевидно случаите с телата на мигранти не попадат в обичайната хипотеза.

      “Когато ние имаме неидентифициран труп, за който няма обяснение [за самоличността], освен, че е [ясно, че е] бежанец, и се предполага, че роднините му са някъде по света и не са се свързали с нас в този, предходния или по-предходния ден, няма обективни причини, които да налагат съхранението на този труп”, обясни той.

      “Представете си, че този баща не се беше появил - ние така или иначе нямаше да стигнем до някакъв резултат и трупът не може да стои безкрайно в камера в някое от здравните заведения”, допълни прокурорът.

      Но според адвокат Драгомир Ошавков, който работи с фондация ФАР в Бургас, в огромния процент от случаите с мигранти органите на досъдебното производство и прокуратурата просто нямат интерес от това да вършат подробни изследвания и да установяват реално причините за смъртта и самоличността.

      “Те бързат да приключат по най-бързия и удобен за тях начин това досъдебно производство”, категочен е той.

      “Това са едни ничии хора, ничии тела. Мигранти, които не представляват голям обществен интерес. Те не са желани в България, не са желани вероятно и в Западна Европа. Вероятно затова те са считани по-скоро като тежест за системата, вместо като случаи, които трябва да бъдат разрешени”, смята юристът.

      https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/migranti-zaginali-bejanci/32708468.html

    • Νεκροί πρόσφυγες στα Βαλκάνια : « Λάδωσε » για να βρεις τον άνθρωπό σου

      Στη βαλκανική οδό πεθαίνουν περισσότεροι αιτούντες άσυλο ακόμα και από το 2015. Ενώ οι συγγενείς καλούνται να αντιμετωπίσουν την κρατική αδιαφορία για την ταυτοποίηση των ανθρώπων τους, αναγκάζονται και να πληρώσουν εκατοντάδες ευρώ απλώς για να τους αναζητήσουν.

      Ήλπιζε πως θα έβρισκε τον γιο του σε κάποιον προσφυγικό καταυλισμό. Και αφού είχε περάσει τρεις εβδομάδες αναζητώντας τον, είχε προετοιμαστεί για το ενδεχόμενο να τον εντοπίσει σε κάποιο νοσοκομείο.

      Αλλά δεν περίμενε να τον βρει στο νεκροταφείο.

      Όταν ο αστυνομικός με το βουλγαρικό εθνόσημο του έδειξε τη φωτογραφία του γιου του, να κείτεται δίχως ζωή στο γρασίδι, έχασε τη γη κάτω απ’ τα πόδια του. « Εύχομαι τουλάχιστον να είχα τη δυνατότητα να δω τον Μαχίντ μια τελευταία φορά. Το μυαλό μου ακόμη και σήμερα δεν μπορεί να πιστέψει πως ο άνθρωπος σε αυτόν τον τάφο είναι ο γιος μου », λέει ο Χουσάμ Αντίν Μπίμπαρς.

      Ο 56χρονος Σύριος πρόσφυγας, πατέρας πέντε ακόμη παιδιών, είχε συμπληρώσει 22 ημέρες αναζητώντας από απόσταση τον γιο του, όταν αποφάσισε να ξοδέψει τα λιγοστά του χρήματα για να ταξιδέψει από τη Δανία στη Βουλγαρία και να ψάξει για εκείνον — αλλά ήταν πια αργά.

      Στη Βουλγαρία, έμαθε πως το σώμα του 27χρονου Μαχίντ είχε ταφεί μέσα σε μόλις τέσσερις ημέρες από τον εντοπισμό του. Ο Μαχίντ είχε ταφεί ως αγνώστων στοιχείων, τίποτα δεν ενημέρωνε πως κάτω από εκείνον τον σωρό με χώμα που αργότερα επισκέφθηκε βρισκόταν ο γιος του.

      « Ακούμε πως η Ευρώπη είναι η γη της ελευθερίας, της δημοκρατίας, και των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων », λέει νηφάλια ο Χουσάμ Αντίν Μπίμπαρς. « Που είναι τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, εάν δεν έχω τη δυνατότητα να δω τον γιο μου πριν την ταφή του ; ».

      Νεκροί δίχως ταυτότητα

      Ο Μαχίντ είχε περάσει από την Τουρκία στη Βουλγαρία με ένα γκρουπ περίπου 20 ακόμη ατόμων, ελπίζοντας να συναντήσει και πάλι τους γονείς και τα αδέρφια του στην Ευρώπη. Αφού έφτανε εκείνος, η έγκυος γυναίκα του και η κόρη τους, Χάνα, θα μπορούσαν να ακολουθήσουν.

      Προς τα τέλη Σεπτεμβρίου, σταμάτησε να απαντάει σε κλήσεις και μηνύματα. Ο διακινητής είπε στον Μπίμπαρς ότι ο Μαχίντ είχε αρρωστήσει και είχε χρειαστεί να τον αφήσουν πίσω. Οι Αρχές είπαν ότι ο γιος του πέθανε από τη δείψα, την εξάντληση, και το κρύο.

      Τα τελευταία χρόνια, με κοινοτικά χρήματα και αυξημένη συμμετοχή του ευρωπαϊκού οργανισμού συνοριοφυλακής Frontex, οι βαλκανικές χώρες εντείνουν ολοένα τους συνοριακούς ελέγχους, αναπτύσσοντας φράχτες, drones, και μηχανισμούς επιτήρησης. Αλλά αυτό δεν αποτρέπει τους αιτούντες άσυλο — τους οδηγεί σε μεγαλύτερες και περισσότερο επικίνδυνες διόδους για να αποφύγουν τις Αρχές.

      Μια έρευνα του Solomon σε συνεργασία με την ερευνητική ομάδα Lighthouse Reports, το γερμανικό περιοδικό Der Spiegel, τη γερμανική δημόσια τηλεόραση ARD, τη βρετανική εφημίδα i, το Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, και ακαδημαϊκούς από τα πανεπιστήμια Aston, Liverpool, και Nottingham, αποτυπώνει πως η εχθρότητα που αντιμετωπίζουν στα σύνορα της Ευρώπης οι άνθρωποι σε κίνηση όσο ζουν συνεχίζεται και στο θάνατο.

      Διαπιστώσαμε πως, από τις αρχές του 2022 έως σήμερα, τα άψυχα σώματα 155 ανθρώπων που πιθανολογείται ότι ήταν αιτούντες άσυλο κατέληξαν σε νεκροτομεία κοντά στα σύνορα κατά μήκος μιας διαδρομής που εκτείνεται ανάμεσα στη Βουλγαρία, τη Σερβία, και τη Βοσνία.

      Από την εξέταση των στοιχείων, για το 2023 προκύπτει ήδη μια αύξηση των θανάτων κατά 46% σε σύγκριση με ολόκληρο το 2022.

      Στα Βαλκάνια, οι αιτούντες άσυλο καλούνται να αντιμετωπίσουν τις δύσκολες καιρικές συνθήκες, αλλά και τις επαναπροωθήσεις, την αυξημένη βιαιότητα συνοριοφυλάκων και διακινητών, την καταλήστευση από συνοριακές δυνάμεις — έως και την κράτησή τους σε μυστικές « φυλακές ».

      Οι οικογένειες των ανθρώπων που πεθαίνουν, ή καθίστανται αγνοούμενοι στην περιοχή, αναζητούν τους δικούς τους σε νεκροτομεία, νοσοκομεία, και ειδικά γκρουπ σε Facebook και WhatsApp. Καλούνται να ανταπεξέλθουν σε μια εξίσου ψυχοφθόρα προσπάθεια, και να αντιμετωπίσουν την αδιαφορία των Αρχών.

      Στη Βουλγαρία, όπως τεκμηριώνει η παρούσα έρευνα, συχνά χρειάζεται και να « λαδώσουν » στην ελπίδα να μάθουν περισσότερα για τους δικούς τους.
      Τα 10 βασικά ευρήματα της έρευνας :

      1. Ο αριθμός όσων ταξίδεψαν παράτυπα μέσω Βαλκανίων για τη δυτική Ευρώπη το 2022 έφτασε στο ανώτατο σημείο από το 2015, με την Frontex να καταγράφει 144.118 παράτυπες διελεύσεις συνόρων.

      2. Ο αντίστοιχος αριθμός για το 2023 είναι μικρότερος (79.609 έως τον Σεπτέμβριο), αλλά παραμένει πολλαπλάσιος σε σχέση με το 2019 (15.127) και το 2018 (5.844).

      3. Η βαλκανική οδός είναι πιο επικίνδυνη από ποτέ : ελλείψει ενός κεντρικού σχετικού συστήματος καταγραφής, η πλατφόρμα Missing Migrants του Διεθνούς Οργανισμού Μετανάστευσης (ΔΟΜ) υποδεικνύει ότι το 2022 έχασαν τη ζωή τους ή κατέστησαν αγνοούμενοι περισσότεροι άνθρωποι ακόμη και από το 2015.

      4. Σύμφωνα με στοιχεία που συγκεντρώσαμε, τουλάχιστον 155 αταυτοποίητα πτώματα κατέληξαν σε έξι νεκροτομεία ενός τμήματος της βαλκανικής οδού, που περιλαμβάνει Βουλγαρία, Σερβία, και Βοσνία. Η πλειοψηφία των πτωμάτων (92) εντοπίστηκαν φέτος.

      5. Για το 2023, ο αριθμός εμφανίζει ήδη αύξηση κατά 46% σε σχέση με το 2022, και εκτοξεύεται σε ορισμένα νεκροτομεία.

      6. Κάποια νεκροτομεία της Βουλγαρίας (Μπουργκάς, Γιάμπολ) δυσκολεύονται να βρουν χώρο για τα σώματα των προσφύγων. Άλλα στη Σερβία (Λόζνιτσα) δεν διαθέτουν καθόλου χώρο.

      7. Η έλλειψη χώρου οδηγεί στην ταφή αταυτοποίητων σωμάτων εντός ημερών, σε τάφους αγνώστων στοιχείων. Αυτό σημαίνει πως καθίσταται πρακτικά αδύνατο για τις οικογένειες να μπορέσουν να ταυτοποιήσουν τους δικούς τους.

      8. Στη Βουλγαρία, οικογένειες μας είπαν πως αναγκάστηκαν να « λαδώσουν » εργαζομένους σε νοσοκομεία και νεκροτομεία, αλλά και συνοριοφύλακες, αναζητώντας τους ανθρώπους τους. Πηγές στο πεδίο επιβεβαιώνουν την πρακτική, η οποία καταγράφεται και σε ηχητικό αρχείο στην κατοχή μας.

      9. Στη Βοσνία, 28 άνθρωποι που εκτιμάται πως ήταν αιτούντες άσυλο έχουν ήδη χάσει τη ζωή τους στον ποταμό Ντρίνα φέτος, σε σύγκριση με μόλις πέντε το 2022 και τρεις το 2021.

      10. Γραφειοκρατία και έλλειψη κρατικού ενδιαφέροντος καταγράφεται πως δυσχεραίνουν τις προσπάθειες ταυτοποίησης νεκρών αιτούντων άσυλο.

      Νεκρός αλλά δεν ξέρει γιατί

      Τι κάνεις όταν ο μικρός σου αδερφός σου αγνοείται, και το δικό σου καθεστώς απαγορεύει να βρεθείς στο πεδίο για να τον αναζητήσεις ;

      Ο 29χρονος Ασματουλά Σεντίκι βρισκόταν στη δομή φιλοξενίας στο Γουόρινγκτον του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου, όπου έχει αιτηθεί άσυλο, όταν συνταξιδιώτες του αδερφού του τον ενημέρωσαν πως ο 22χρονος Ραχματουλά πιθανόν να ήταν νεκρός.

      Λόγω του καθεστώτους του ως αιτούντα άσυλο, το Home Office δεν επέτρεψε στον Ασματουλά να επιστρέψει στη Βουλγαρία, την οποία είχε διασχίσει και ο ίδιος κατά το δικό του ταξίδι, για να αναζητήσει τον αδερφό του.

      Όταν ένας φίλος κατέστη δυνατό να πάει για λογαριασμό του, η βουλγαρική αστυνομία αρνήθηκε να δώσει οποιαδήποτε πληροφορία. Και το προσωπικό του νεκροτομείου ζήτησε 300 ευρώ για τον αφήσει να δει ορισμένα πτώματα, είπε ο Σεντίκι στα πλαίσια της παρούσας έρευνας.

      « Σε μια τέτοια κατάσταση, ο άνθρωπος πρέπει να βοηθάει τον άνθρωπο », πρόσθεσε. « Ξέρουν μόνο τα χρήματα. Δεν τους ενδιαφέρει η ανθρώπινη ζωή ».

      Κατάφερε να δανειστεί το ποσό που του ζήτησαν. Τον Ιούλιο του 2022, 55 ημέρες μετά την εξαφάνισή του αδερφού του, το νοσοκομείο του Μπουργκάς επιβεβαίωσε ότι ένα από τα σώματα στο νεκροτομείο ανήκε σε κείνον. Με ακόμη 3.000 ευρώ που δανείστηκε, μπόρεσε να επαναπατρίσει τον αδελφό του στους γονείς τους στο Αφγανιστάν.

      Αλλά έως και σήμερα, τον Ασματουλά κατατρώει μια σκέψη : δεν γνωρίζει πώς, δεν τον έχει ενημερώσει κανείς γιατί, πέθανε ο αδερφός του.

      Οι βουλγαρικές Αρχές δεν του έχουν δώσει τα αποτελέσματα της νεκροψίας, επειδή δεν έχει βίζα για να ταξιδέψει εκεί, λέει. « Είμαι σίγουρος ότι, όταν η αστυνομία τον βρήκε στο δάσος, θα τράβηξε κάποιες φωτογραφίες. Θέλω να δω πώς έμοιαζε τότε το σώμα του ».
      « Ούτε μια καταγγελία »

      Στα πλαίσια της παρούσας έρευνας των Solomon, Lighthouse Reports, RFE/RL, inews, ARD, και Der Spiegel, αρκετοί συγγενείς μας είπαν πως είχαν επίσης αναγκαστεί να « λαδώσουν » εργαζομένους στο νεκροτομείο του Μπουργκάς, προκειμένου να μπορέσουν να διαπιστώσουν εάν ανάμεσα στα νεκρά σώματα στους ψύκτες βρίσκονταν οι δικοί τους.

      Όταν ρωτήσαμε τη διοίκηση του νοσοκομείου εάν τέτοιου είδους πρακτικές ήταν σε γνώση της, η επικεφαλής του τμήματος ιατροδικαστικής του νοσοκομείου Μπουργκάς, Γκαλίνα Μίλεβα, είπε πως δεν έχει λάβει « ούτε μία αναφορά ή καταγγελία για κάποια τέτοια περίπτωση ».

      « Η ταυτοποίηση των πτωμάτων πραγματοποιείται αποκλειστικά και μόνο παρουσία αστυνομικού που διεξάγει την έρευνα και ιατροδικαστή », υποστήριξε. Απαντώντας σε σχετική ερώτηση, συμπλήρωσε πως δεν υπάρχει καμία νομική πρόβλεψη, με βάση την οποία εργαζόμενοι στο νεκροτομείο θα μπορούσαν να ζητήσουν χρήματα από τους συγγενείς γι’ αυτή τη διαδικασία.

      « Απευθύνουμε έκκληση αυτές οι καταγγελίες να απευθύνονται μέσω της επίσημης οδού σε εμάς και στις ανακριτικές αρχές. Εάν διαπιστωθεί η ύπαρξη τέτοιων πρακτικών, οι εργαζόμενοι θα λογοδοτήσουν », είπε.
      « Ζητούνται χρήματα σε κάθε βήμα της διαδικασίας »

      Άλλος συγγενής, η οικογένεια του οποίου στα τέλη του 2022 χρειάστηκε επίσης να μεταβεί στη Βουλγαρία για να αναζητήσει μέλος της, μας είπε πως αφού έδωσαν δίχως επιτυχία 300 ευρώ σε κάποιον στο νεκροτομείο για να τους επιτραπεί να κοιτάξουν τα νεκρά σώματα, χρειάστηκε να πληρώσουν και συνοριοφύλακες.

      Ήταν ο μόνος τρόπος να τους πάρουν στα σοβαρά, εξήγησε.

      Όταν ζήτησαν από τους συνοριοφύλακες να τους δείξουν φωτογραφίες ανθρώπων σε κίνηση που είχαν εντοπιστεί νεκροί, εκείνοι τους είπαν πως δεν είχαν χρόνο — όταν δέχθηκαν να τους δώσουν 20 ευρώ για κάθε φωτογραφία που θα τους έδειχναν, ο χρόνος βρέθηκε.

      Ο Γκεόργκι Βόινοφ, δικηγόρος του προγράμματος για πρόσφυγες και μετανάστες της Βουλγαρικής Επιτροπής του Ελσίνκι, επιβεβαίωσε πως οικογένειες θανόντων έχουν απευθυνθεί στην οργάνωση για περιπτώσεις στις οποίες νοσοκομεία ζήτησαν μεγάλα ποσά για να επιβεβαιώσουν πως τα σώματα των δικών τους βρίσκονταν εκεί.

      « Καταγγέλλουν ότι τους ζητούνται χρήματα σε κάθε βήμα της διαδικασίας », είπε.

      Πηγές από διεθνείς οργανισμούς, μεταξύ αυτών και από τον Ερυθρό Σταυρό Βουλγαρίας, επιβεβαίωσαν πως είχαν συναφή εμπειρία από συγγενείς τους οποίους είχαν υποστηρίξει, και οι οποίοι είχαν επίσης αναγκαστεί να καταβάλουν χρήματα σε νεκροτομεία και νοσοκομεία.

      « Καταλαβαίνουμε ότι αυτοί οι άνθρωποι είναι πολύ καταβεβλημένοι και πρέπει να πληρώνονται επιπλέον για όλη αυτή την επιπλέον δουλειά που κάνουν », σχολίασε στέλεχος του Ερυθρού Σταυρού Βουλγαρίας που μίλησε στην έρευνα υπό τον όρο ανωνυμίας.

      « Αλλά ας συμβαίνει αυτό με νόμιμο τρόπο ».

      * Στην έρευνα, που πραγματοποιήθηκε σε συντονισμό του Lighthouse Reports, συμμετείχαν οι Σταύρος Μαλιχούδης, Jack Sapoch, May Bulman, Maria Cheresheva, Steffen Ludke, Ivana Milanovic Djukic, Nicole Voegele, Jelena Obradović-Wochnik, Thom Davies, Arshad Isakjee, Doraid al Hafid, Anna Tillack, Oliver Soos, Klaas van Dijken, Aleksandar Milanovic, Camelia Ivanova, Pat Rubio Bertran.

      https://wearesolomon.com/el/mag/thematikh/metanasteush/dead-refugees-balkans

      #Loznica

    • Surge in refugee deaths in Balkans region where UK provides border force training

      InvestigationAlmost 100 people presumed to be migrants have died along one section of the route this year - a 46 per cent increase on the whole of 2022

      When he saw the photograph of his dead son, Hussam Adin Bibars collapsed to the floor. After three weeks of searching, he had found him – and his worst fears had been realised.

      The image, handed to him by a Bulgarian police officer, showed 27-year-old Majd Addin Bibars lying pale and lifeless on a patch of grass. “I fell down when I saw it,” Mr Bibars, 53, recalls. “I recognised him immediately … It was my son.”

      The Syrian father of five, who has refugee status and lives in Denmark, wanted to see Majd’s body for himself – but was told it had already been buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery several miles away, four days after it was found.

      Majd had been travelling through Bulgaria from Turkey in the hope of reaching Germany, where he would be closer to his parents and hoped to later bring his pregnant wife and young daughter, Hanaa, to join him.

      He had been with a group of around 20 others embarking on the same, dangerous journey – but he stopped responding to texts and calls at the end of September. The smuggler leading the group informed Mr Bibars that Majd had fallen sick and the group had left him, the grieving father says.

      After 22 days searching for Majd from afar, Mr Bibars decided to spend the little money he had to travel to Bulgaria.

      After speaking to a staff member at a hospital near the Turkish border – with the help of a translator – he was directed to the local police station, where he was shown the photo of Majd’s lifeless body. He was told his son had died of thirst, exhaustion and cold – and that he had been buried.

      “We hear that Europe is the land of freedom, democracy and human rights – where are human rights if I can’t see my son before his funeral?” asks Mr Bibars. “All I saw was a grave, photos and his phone. That’s all I have of him.”

      Majd was one of many people who have died while travelling through the Balkans to reach Western Europe – and whose families are forced to undergo a painstaking process to find out what happened.

      Many making these fatal journeys had hoped to claim asylum in EU countries such as Germany and France, while others planned to try their luck on a small boat towards the UK, often due to existing family ties in the country. So far this year, Britain has received the fifth-highest number of asylum applications across Europe.

      There is no official data on the number of deaths, but an investigation by i, in collaboration with investigative bureau Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, Solomon, ARD and RFE/RL Sofia, has found that the bodies of 92 people presumed to be migrants have been received across six morgues in border areas along one section of the route – spanning Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia – this year, a 46 per cent increase on the whole of 2022.

      Border security in these countries has been tightened in recent years, helped by funding from the EU and the UK. Britain has provided training and equipment to Bulgarian border police since 2020, and Rishi Sunak announced in October that his Government would form bilateral initiatives with Bulgaria and Serbia aimed at tackling organised crime linked to illegal migration.

      Migration experts have criticised these agreements, highlighting the risks attached to such cooperation given that border guards in these countries are known to have been involved in violations of international law, including pushbacks and other violence against people on the move.

      Use of violence by border police in the Balkans has increased, with officers in some areas – notably Bulgarian police operating near the Turkish border and Serbian police in northern Serbia – documented using violence against people trying to cross, and sometimes illegally forcing them back across borders.

      Instead of deterring people from making the journeys, it has led them to take longer and more dangerous routes to evade security forces – leading to more deaths.

      At the same time, the number of people being resettled under safe and legal routes in Europe has declined, with 79 per cent fewer relocated under UNHCR resettlement schemes in the UK last year than in 2019, and 17 per cent fewer across the EU.

      This investigation has found that many migrants have been buried in anonymous graves, sometimes within days – like Majd – due to lack of space in morgues, making it almost impossible for their families to locate them.

      Milen Bozhidarov, the prosecutor in Yambol, a Bulgarian city close to the Turkish border, said Majd’s funeral took place after four days in keeping with their procedure of carrying out burials of unidentified migrants “fast” to free up space in the morgue.

      “When we have unidentified body that was found in a place that gives us no other explanation except that the person is a migrant, and the suggestion is that the relatives are somewhere in the world and no one is getting in touch with us that day or on the next day, then there are no objective reasons why the body should be kept,” he added.

      Some family members have been forced to pay bribes to morgue staff to find out whether their loved ones’ bodies are held. i has heard testimony from several families saying they paid sums of cash ranging from €50 to €300 to staff at the morgue in Burgas, a Bulgarian city near the Turkish border, to see the bodies.

      The head of the Burgas morgue, Galina Mileva, said it had not received any complaints about such incidents and encouraged people to report such cases to the morgue’s management.

      The countries where these deaths occur, and Europe as a whole, are under growing pressure from politicians, NGOs and forensic experts to create a mechanism to help families searching for missing loved ones who have died on these journeys.

      Families face additional hurdles when they can’t travel due to their status or nationality. Asmatullah Sediqi, an Afghan asylum seeker in the UK, was prevented by UK Home Office rules from travelling to Bulgaria, where his 22-year-old brother Rahmatullah had gone missing presumed dead after crossing from Turkey.

      A friend went on his behalf, but Bulgarian police refused to provide any information, and morgue staff said he would need to pay them €300 to see any bodies, Mr Sediqi said.

      “They just know money. They don’t care about a human life,” he added.

      Mr Sediqi, 29, who lives in asylum accommodation in Warrington, borrowed money to pay the bribe. His friend established that one of the bodies in the morgue was Rahmatullah.

      By borrowing another €3,000 – putting him into heavy debt – Mr Sediqi paid a company to repatriate his brother’s body to his parents in Afghanistan. But he has had no information by the Bulgarian authorities on how Rahmatullah died.

      “They didn’t give us the results of the autopsy because I don’t have a visa to go there,” he says. “It’s very painful not knowing what happened to my brother.”

      Dr Vidak Simić, a pathologist in Bosnia who carries out autopsies on bodies found in the Drina River on the Serbian border, said the number of unidentified migrant bodies being brought to him for autopsy has surged in the past year.

      In 2023, he has examined the bodies of 28, compared with five last year and three in 2021. The vast majority remain unidentified and are buried in graves marked “NN” – an abbreviation for a Latin term for a person with no name.

      The doctor is working with a local activist to try to help families find missing loved ones, checking his autopsy files to see if any unidentified bodies match the description of missing people – but says a proper system is needed.

      “[Families] enter a painstaking process, through embassies, burial organisations, to obtain a bone sample, so that they can compare it with one of their family members,” he says. “Nobody is doing the work to connect families with those who have drowned.”

      EU human rights commissioner Dunja Mijatović described “inaction” among European countries to facilitate DNA matching and create a data collection procedure on migrant disappearances and deaths.

      Erik Marquardt, Green Party politician in the European Parliament, said the fact that countries such as Bulgaria are burying unidentified bodies within days suggested they “don’t want attention brought to these cases”.

      “We have to think about whether we can set up a database at an EU level that would oblige member states to clarify: who is this person’s child, who are the parents, how can they be reached? This is very important,” he added.

      Until then, the bodies of those who die escaping conflict will continue to pile up in morgues or be buried without a trace, leaving more families to endure an agonising process to find out they have died – or left in a perpetual state of uncertainty.

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK and Bulgaria have a close law enforcement partnership. By working together we are able to bolster Bulgaria’s border security, tackle serious organised crime and immigration crime threats, and disrupt the business model of these criminal groups.

      “Individuals awaiting the outcome of their asylum claims in the UK are not permitted to travel abroad, but are provided with a range of support by the government.”

      https://inews.co.uk/news/world/surge-refugee-deaths-balkans-uk-training-border-forces-2785043

    • Almost 100 refugees died on their way through Bulgaria within the last two years

      According to a research by the ARD studio (https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/bulgarien-migranten-todesfaelle-100.html) in Vienna in cooperation with Lighthouse Reports (https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/europes-nameless-dead), Der Spiegel (https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/vermisste-fluechtlinge-auf-der-balkanroute-europas-namenlose-tote-a-5d0b55a7), RFE/RL (https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/migranti-zaginali-bejanci/32708468.html), Solomon (https://wearesolomon.com/el/mag/thematikh/metanasteush/dead-refugees-balkans) and inews (https://inews.co.uk/news/world/surge-refugee-deaths-balkans-uk-training-border-forces-2785043) – which was published in the beginning of December 2023 – at least 93 people died on their way through Bulgaria in the last two years alone.

      The research team spoke with forensic pathologists in Bulgaria and people whose family members had gone missing or died on the route. The people on the run are usually dying because of exhaustion and cold on their route, which leads through mountains, bushes and the countryside. The last case was reported on the 27th of November 2023 by the Bulgarian authorities (https://orf.at/stories/3341237). Additionally there is a fence at the Bulgarian-Turkish border which was constructed already in 2013 and replaced and modified in the following years with a bigger one (https://bordermonitoring.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/bm.eu-2020-bulgaria_web.pdf). Additionally to this numerous car accidents are happening regularly. Some of them are fatal (https://bulgaria.bordermonitoring.eu/2023/03/20/another-refugee-dies-on-the-streets-of-bulgaria).

      But not only the dangerous way is the problem for the people on the run, there is also the Bulgarian border police, which is accused of brutal Push-Backs. According to the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee only in 2022 almost 90.000 people where affected by #push-backs (https://ecre.org/2022-update-aida-country-report-on-bulgaria). Also young people with their families and unaccompanied minors are at risk to be push-backed, as the NGOs “Center for legal aid – Voice in Bulgaria“ and “Mission Wings“ found out, while conducting interviews in Turkey (https://www.tdh.de/fileadmin/user_upload/inhalte/04_Was_wir_tun/Themen/Weitere_Themen/Fluechtlingskinder/tdh_Bericht_Kinderrechtsverletzungen-an-EU-Aussengrenzen.pdf). For 2023 Interior Minister Kalin Stoyanov stated that that app 165,000 ‚illegal entry attempts‘ at the Bulgarian-Turkish were prevented (https://www.novinite.com/articles/222633/October+Sees+41+Decrease+in+Illegal+Migrants+in+Bulgaria).

      With regard to Bulgaria, the fundamental rights officer of the EU border protection authority Frontex became active in a total of seven internally reported cases regarding possible violations of fundamental rights, the authority said in response to a request from ORF (https://orf.at/stories/3341237). In the beginning of December 2023. All cases concern pushback allegations from Bulgaria to Turkey, a Frontex spokeswoman said. At least 232 Frontex officers were deployed in Bulgaria in 2023 (https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/51259/exclusive-why-are-migrant-pushbacks-from-bulgaria-to-turkey-soaring).

      https://bulgaria.bordermonitoring.eu/2023/12/02/almost-100-people-died-on-their-way-through-bulgaria-withi

    • Bulgarie :

      “The #Strandzha national park straddles the Bulgarian-Turkish border. It is in this densely forested and mountainous area of land where people are known to often make the border crossing by foot. A treacherous journey often taking many days, and also known to have taken many lives - lighthouse reports identified 82 bodies of people on the move that have passed through three morgues in Bulgaria. Many of whom will have died on the Strandzha crossing.

      It is reported(14) that morgues in the towns of Burgas and Yambol - on the outskirts of the Strandzha national park - are having difficulty finding space due to the amount of deaths occurring in this area. So much so that a public prosecutor from Yambol explained this as the reason why people are being buried without identification in nameless graves, sometimes after only 4 days of storage. It is also reported that families who tried to find and identify the bodies of their deceased loved ones were forced to pay cash bribes to the Burgas morgue in order to do so.

      Through networks with families in home countries, NGOs based nearby make efforts to alert authorities and to respond to distress calls from people in danger within the Strandzha national park. However, the Bulgarian state makes these attempts nearly impossible through heavy militarisation and the associated criminalisation of being active in the area. It is the same militarisation that is supported with money from the EU’s ‘cooperation framework’. Due to these limitations even the bodies that make it to morgues in Bulgaria are likely to be only a percentage of the total death toll that is effectively sponsored by the EU.

      Local NGO Mission Wings stated(15) that in 2022 they received at most 12 distress calls, whereas in 2023 the NGO stopped counting at 70. This gives a clear correlation between increased funding to the fortification of the EU’s external border and the amount of lives put in danger.”

      https://seenthis.net/messages/1052856

  • [Occitanie] La stratégie aéroportuaire dans le viseur de la chambre régionale des comptes
    https://gazette-du-midi.fr/au-sommaire/collectivites/la-strategie-aeroportuaire-dans-le-viseur-de-la-chambre-regionale-de

    Enquête. Outre Toulouse et Montpellier, la région Occitanie compte sept aéroports qui accueillent 1,9 million de passagers par an via les vols low cost. Un trafic qui coûte cher aux finances publiques : de l’ordre de 30 M€ par an. À l’heure de la transition écologique, ce modèle est de moins en moins soutenable. C’est ce que rappelle la chambre régionale des comptes.

  • Deutlich mehr Angriffe auf Geflüchtete als 2022

    Angriffe auf Geflüchtete und Unterkünfte in Deutschland haben 2023 im Vergleich zum Vorjahr stark zugenommen - das geht aus einer Antwort der Bundesregierung hervor. Die Linkspartei fordert einen besseren Schutz für Flüchtlinge.

    Die Zahl der Angriffe auf Flüchtlinge, Asylbewerber und ihre Unterkünfte hat deutlich zugenommen. In den ersten neun Monaten dieses Jahres gab es bereits mehr solcher Attacken als im gesamten Vorjahr, heißt es in einer Antwort der Bundesregierung auf eine Anfrage der Linksfraktion. Den Angaben zufolge wurden in den ersten drei Quartalen dieses Jahres 1515 solcher Angriffe gezählt, nach 1371 Angriffen im gesamten Jahr 2022.

    Wie die Nachrichtenagentur dpa aus der Statistik zitiert, wurden Flüchtlingsunterkünfte im dritten Quartal in 30 Fällen Tatort oder Angriffsziel einer politisch motivierten Straftat. In drei dieser Fälle ging es demnach um Gewaltdelikte. Der größte Teil der Angriffe auf Unterkünfte - 23 Straftaten - wurde von der Polizei der rechten Szene zugeordnet.

    Aktuelle Asyldebatte als Grund für vermehrte Übergriffe?

    Auch bei 375 von 417 in diesem Zeitraum registrierten politisch motivierten Straftaten außerhalb von Unterkünften, die sich gegen Asylbewerber oder anerkannte Flüchtlinge richteten, geht die Polizei von einem rechts motivierten Delikt aus. 19 Straftaten entfielen demnach auf den Phänomenbereich „ausländische Ideologie“, zwei wurden als links motiviert eingeordnet. Bei einigen blieb der Hintergrund unklar. In insgesamt 55 Fällen war Gewalt im Spiel.

    „Tagtäglich werden in Deutschland Geflüchtete angegriffen, gedemütigt und angefeindet“, sagte die Linken-Abgeordnete Clara Bünger. Bund und Länder müssten dringend geeignete Schutzkonzepte erarbeiten und umsetzen. Bünger sieht einen Grund für die Zunahme der Angriffe in der aktuellen Debatte über Asylfragen. Diese bereitet ihrer Ansicht nach „den Boden für rassistische Mobilisierungen auf der Straße und Gewalttaten gegen Geflüchtete“.

    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/uebergriffe-gefluechtete-100.html
    #attaques #Allemagne #anti-réfugiés #racisme #xénophobie #statistiques #chiffres #2023

    ping @_kg_

  • Les #voitures_électriques assoiffent les #pays_du_Sud

    Pour extraire des #métaux destinés aux voitures électriques des pays les plus riches, il faut de l’eau. Au #Maroc, au #Chili, en #Argentine… les #mines engloutissent la ressource de pays souffrant déjà de la sécheresse.

    #Batteries, #moteurs… Les voitures électriques nécessitent des quantités de métaux considérables. Si rien n’est fait pour limiter leur nombre et leur #poids, on estime qu’elles pourraient engloutir plusieurs dizaines de fois les quantités de #cobalt, de #lithium ou de #graphite que l’on extrait aujourd’hui.

    Démultiplier la #production_minière dans des proportions aussi vertigineuses a une conséquence directe : elle pompe des #ressources en eau de plus en plus rares. Car produire des métaux exige beaucoup d’eau. Il en faut pour concentrer le métal, pour alimenter les usines d’#hydrométallurgie, pour les procédés ultérieurs d’#affinage ; il en faut aussi pour obtenir les #solvants et les #acides utilisés à chacun de ces stades, et encore pour simplement limiter l’envol de #poussières dans les mines. Produire 1 kilogramme de cuivre peut nécessiter 130 à 270 litres d’eau, 1 kg de nickel 100 à 1 700 l, et 1 kg de lithium 2 000 l [1].

    Selon une enquête de l’agence de notation étatsunienne Fitch Ratings, les investisseurs considèrent désormais les #pénuries_d’eau comme la principale menace pesant sur le secteur des mines et de la #métallurgie. Elle estime que « les pressions sur la ressource, comme les pénuries d’eau localisées et les #conflits_d’usage, vont probablement augmenter dans les décennies à venir, mettant de plus en plus en difficulté la production de batteries et de technologies bas carbone ». Et pour cause : les deux tiers des mines industrielles sont aujourd’hui situées dans des régions menacées de sécheresse [2].

    L’entreprise anglaise #Anglo_American, cinquième groupe minier au monde, admet que « 75 % de ses mines sont situées dans des zones à haut risque » du point de vue de la disponibilité en eau. La #voiture_électrique devait servir à lutter contre le réchauffement climatique. Le paradoxe est qu’elle nécessite de telles quantités de métaux que, dans bien des régions du monde, elle en aggrave les effets : la sécheresse et la pénurie d’eau.

    Au Maroc, la mine de cobalt de #Bou_Azzer exploitée par la #Managem, qui alimente la production de batteries de #BMW et qui doit fournir #Renault à partir de 2025, prélèverait chaque année l’équivalent de la consommation d’eau de 50 000 habitants. À quelques kilomètres du site se trouvent la mine de #manganèse d’#Imini et la mine de #cuivre de #Bleida, tout aussi voraces en eau, qui pourraient bientôt alimenter les batteries de Renault. Le groupe a en effet annoncé vouloir élargir son partenariat avec Managem « à l’approvisionnement de #sulfate_de_manganèse et de cuivre ».

    Importer de l’eau depuis le désert

    Importer du cobalt, du cuivre ou du manganèse depuis la région de Bou Azzer, cela revient en quelque sorte à importer de l’eau depuis le désert. Les prélèvements de ces mines s’ajoutent à ceux de l’#agriculture_industrielle d’#exportation. À #Agdez et dans les localités voisines, les robinets et les fontaines sont à sec plusieurs heures par jour en été, alors que la température peut approcher les 45 °C. « Bientôt, il n’y aura plus d’eau, s’insurgeait Mustafa, responsable des réseaux d’eau potable du village de Tasla, lors de notre reportage à Bou Azzer. Ici, on se sent comme des morts-vivants. »

    Un des conflits socio-environnementaux les plus graves qu’ait connus le Maroc ces dernières années s’est produit à 150 kilomètres de là, et il porte lui aussi sur l’eau et la mine. Dans la région du #Draâ-Tafilalet, dans la commune d’Imider, la Managem exploite une mine d’#argent, un métal aujourd’hui principalement utilisé pour l’#électricité et l’#électronique, en particulier automobile. D’ailleurs, selon le Silver Institute, « les politiques nationales de plus en plus favorables aux véhicules électriques auront un impact positif net sur la demande en argent métal ». À Imider, les prélèvements d’eau croissants de la mine d’argent ont poussé les habitants à la #révolte. À partir de 2011, incapables d’irriguer leurs cultures, des habitants ont occupé le nouveau réservoir de la mine, allant jusqu’à construire un hameau de part et d’autre des conduites installées par la Managem. En 2019, les amendes et les peines d’emprisonnement ont obligé la communauté d’Imider à évacuer cette #zad du désert, mais les causes profondes du conflit perdurent.

    « Ici, on se sent comme des morts-vivants »

    Autre exemple : au Chili, le groupe Anglo American exploite la mine de cuivre d’#El_Soldado, dans la région de #Valparaiso. Les sécheresses récurrentes conjuguées à l’activité minière entraînent des #coupures_d’eau de plus en plus fréquentes. Pour le traitement du #minerai, Anglo American est autorisé à prélever 453 litres par seconde, indique Greenpeace, tandis que les 11 000 habitants de la ville voisine d’#El_Melón n’ont parfois plus d’eau au robinet. En 2020, cette #pénurie a conduit une partie de la population à occuper l’un des #forages de la mine, comme au Maroc.

    #Désalinisation d’eau de mer

    L’année suivante, les associations d’habitants ont déposé une #plainte à la Cour suprême du Chili pour exiger la protection de leur droit constitutionnel à la vie, menacé par la consommation d’eau de l’entreprise minière. Face au mouvement de #contestation national #No_más_Anglo (On ne veut plus d’Anglo), le groupe a dû investir dans une usine de désalinisation de l’eau pour alimenter une autre de ses mégamines de cuivre au Chili. Distante de 200 kilomètres, l’usine fournira 500 litres par seconde à la mine de #Los_Bronces, soit la moitié de ses besoins en eau.

    Les entreprises minières mettent souvent en avant des innovations technologiques permettant d’économiser l’eau sur des sites. Dans les faits, les prélèvements en eau de cette industrie ont augmenté de façon spectaculaire ces dernières années : l’Agence internationale de l’énergie note qu’ils ont doublé entre 2018 et 2021. Cette augmentation s’explique par la ruée sur les #métaux_critiques, notamment pour les batteries, ainsi que par le fait que les #gisements exploités sont de plus en plus pauvres. Comme l’explique l’association SystExt, composée de géologues et d’ingénieurs miniers, « la diminution des teneurs et la complexification des minerais exploités et traités conduisent à une augmentation exponentielle des quantités d’énergie et d’eau utilisées pour produire la même quantité de métal ».

    Réduire d’urgence la taille des véhicules

    En bref, il y de plus en plus de mines, des mines de plus en plus voraces en eau, et de moins en moins d’eau. Les métaux nécessaires aux batteries jouent un rôle important dans ces conflits, qu’ils aient lieu au Maroc, au Chili ou sur les plateaux andins d’Argentine ou de Bolivie où l’extraction du lithium est âprement contestée par les peuples autochtones. Comme l’écrit la politologue chilienne Bárbara Jerez, l’#électromobilité est inséparable de son « #ombre_coloniale » : la perpétuation de l’échange écologique inégal sur lequel est fondé le #capitalisme. Avec les véhicules électriques, les pays riches continuent d’accaparer les ressources des zones les plus pauvres. Surtout, au lieu de s’acquitter de leur #dette_écologique en réparant les torts que cause le #réchauffement_climatique au reste du monde, ils ne font qu’accroître cette dette.

    Entre une petite voiture de 970 kg comme la Dacia Spring et une BMW de plus de 2 tonnes, la quantité de métaux varie du simple au triple. Pour éviter, de toute urgence, que les mines ne mettent à sec des régions entières, la première chose à faire serait de diminuer la demande en métaux en réduisant la taille des véhicules. C’est ce que préconise l’ingénieur Philippe Bihouix, spécialiste des matières premières et coauteur de La ville stationnaire — Comment mettre fin à l’étalement urbain (Actes Sud, 2022) : « C’est un gâchis effroyable de devoir mobiliser l’énergie et les matériaux nécessaires à la construction et au déplacement de 1,5 ou 2 tonnes, pour in fine ne transporter la plupart du temps qu’une centaine de kilogrammes de passagers et de bagages », dit-il à Reporterre.

    « C’est un #gâchis effroyable »

    « C’est à la puissance publique de siffler la fin de partie et de revoir les règles, estime l’ingénieur. Il faudrait interdire les véhicules électriques personnels au-delà d’un certain poids, comme les #SUV. Fixer une limite, ou un malus progressif qui devient vite très prohibitif, serait un bon signal à envoyer dès maintenant. Puis, cette limite pourrait être abaissée régulièrement, au rythme de sortie des nouveaux modèles. »

    C’est loin, très loin d’être la stratégie adoptée par le gouvernement. À partir de 2024, les acheteurs de véhicules de plus de 1,6 tonne devront payer un #malus_écologique au poids. Les véhicules électriques, eux, ne sont pas concernés par la mesure.

    LES BESOINS EN MÉTAUX EN CHIFFRES

    En 2018, l’Académie des sciences constatait que le programme de véhicules électriques français repose sur « des quantités de lithium et de cobalt très élevées, qui excèdent, en fait et à technologie inchangée, les productions mondiales d’aujourd’hui, et ce pour satisfaire le seul besoin français ! » En clair : si on ne renonce pas à la voiture personnelle, il faudra, pour disposer d’une flotte tout électrique rien qu’en France, plus de cobalt et de lithium que l’on en produit actuellement dans le monde en une année.

    L’Agence internationale de l’énergie estime que la demande de lithium pour les véhicules électriques pourrait être multipliée par 14 en 25 ans, celle de cuivre par 10 et celle de cobalt par 3,5. Simon Michaux, ingénieur minier et professeur à l’Institut géologique de Finlande, a calculé récemment que si l’on devait électrifier les 1,4 milliard de voitures en circulation sur la planète, il faudrait disposer de l’équivalent de 156 fois la production mondiale actuelle de lithium, 51 fois la production de cobalt, 119 fois la production de graphite et plus de deux fois et demie la production actuelle de cuivre [3]. Quelles que soient les estimations retenues, ces volumes de métaux ne pourraient provenir du recyclage, puisqu’ils seraient nécessaires pour construire la première génération de véhicules électriques.

    https://reporterre.net/Les-voitures-electriques-assoiffent-les-pays-du-Sud
    #eau #sécheresse #extractivisme #résistance #justice #industrie_automobile #métaux_rares

    • #Scandale du « cobalt responsable » de BMW et Renault au Maroc

      Pour la fabrication des batteries de leurs véhicules électriques, BMW et Renault s’approvisionnent en cobalt au Maroc en se vantant de leur politique d’achat éthique. « Cette publicité est mensongère et indécente. L’extraction de cobalt dans la mine de Bou Azzer, au sud du Maroc, se déroule dans des conditions choquantes, au mépris des règles les plus élémentaires de sécurité, du droit du travail et de la liberté d’association », s’insurgent plusieurs responsables syndicaux et associatifs, basés en France et au Maroc.

      Pour la fabrication des batteries de leurs véhicules électriques, BMW et Renault s’affichent en champions de la mine responsable. Depuis 2020, la marque allemande s’approvisionne en cobalt au Maroc auprès de la Managem, grande entreprise minière appartenant à la famille royale. En 2022, Renault l’a imité en signant un accord avec le groupe marocain portant sur l’achat de 5000 tonnes de sulfate de cobalt par an pour alimenter sa « gigafactory » dans les Hauts de France. Forts de ces contrats, les deux constructeurs automobiles ont mené des campagnes de presse pour vanter leur politique d’achat de matières premières éthiques, BMW assurant que « l’extraction de cobalt par le groupe Managem répond aux critères de soutenabilité les plus exigeants » en matière de respect des droits humains et de l’environnement.

      Cette publicité est mensongère et indécente. L’extraction de cobalt dans la mine de Bou Azzer, au sud du Maroc, se déroule dans des conditions choquantes, au mépris des règles les plus élémentaires de sécurité, du droit du travail et de la liberté d’association. Elle est responsable de violations de droits humains, d’une pollution majeure à l’arsenic et menace les ressources en eau de la région, comme l’ont révélé l’enquête de Celia Izoard sur Reporterre et le consortium d’investigation réunissant le quotidien Süddeutsche Zeitung, les radiotélévisions allemandes NDR et WDR et le journal marocain Hawamich (2).

      Une catastrophe écologique

      Les constructeurs automobiles n’ont jamais mentionné que la mine de Bou Azzer n’est pas seulement une mine de cobalt : c’est aussi une mine d’arsenic, substance cancérigène et hautement toxique. Depuis le démarrage de la mine par les Français en 1934, les déchets miniers chargés d’arsenic ont été massivement déversés en aval des usines de traitement. Dans les oasis de cette région désertique, sur un bassin versant de plus de 40 kilomètres, les eaux et les terres agricoles sont contaminées. A chaque crue, les résidus stockés dans les bassins de la mine continuent de se déverser dans les cours d’eau.

      A Zaouit Sidi-Blal, commune de plus de 1400 habitants, cette pollution a fait disparaître toutes les cultures vivrières à l’exception des palmiers dattiers. Les représentants de la commune qui ont mené des procédures pour faire reconnaître la pollution ont été corrompus ou intimidés, si bien que la population n’a fait l’objet d’aucune compensation ou mesure de protection.

      Dans le village de Bou Azzer, à proximité immédiate du site minier, treize familles et une vingtaine d’enfants se trouvent dans une situation d’urgence sanitaire manifeste. Faute d’avoir été relogés, ils vivent à quelques centaines de mètres des bassins de déchets contenant des dizaines de milliers de tonnes d’arsenic, au milieu des émanations d’acide sulfurique, sans argent pour se soigner.

      Depuis vingt ans, la mine de Bou Azzer, exploitée en zone désertique, n’a cessé d’augmenter sa production. Le traitement des minerais consomme des centaines de millions de litres d’eau par an dans cette région durement frappée par la sécheresse. Les nappes phréatiques sont si basses que, dans certains villages voisins de la mine, l’eau doit être coupée plusieurs heures par jour. A l’évidence une telle exploitation ne peut être considérée comme « soutenable ».

      Mineurs sacrifiés

      Les conditions d’extraction à Bou Azzer sont aussi alarmantes qu’illégales. Alors que le recours à l’emploi temporaire pour les mineurs de fond est interdit au Maroc, des centaines d’employés de la mine travaillent en contrat à durée déterminée pour des entreprises de sous-traitance. Ces mineurs travaillent sans protection et ne sont même pas prévenus de l’extrême toxicité des poussières qu’ils inhalent. Les galeries de la mine s’effondrent fréquemment faute d’équipement adéquat, entraînant des décès ou des blessures graves. Les entreprises sous-traitantes ne disposent d’aucune ambulance pour évacuer les blessés, qui sont transportés en camion. Les nombreux mineurs atteints de silicose et de cancer sont licenciés et leurs maladies professionnelles ne sont pas déclarées. Arrivés à la retraite, certains survivent avec une pension de moins de 100 euros par mois et n’ont pas les moyens de soigner les maladies contractées dans les galeries de Bou Azzer.

      Enfin, si la Managem prétend « promouvoir les libertés syndicales et les droits d’association », la situation politique du Maroc aurait dû amener BMW et Renault à s’intéresser de près à l’application de ces droits humains. Il n’existe à Bou Azzer qu’un syndicat aux ordres de la direction, et pour cause ! En 2011-2012, lors de la dernière grande grève sur le site, les tentatives d’implanter une section de la Confédération des travailleurs ont été violemment réprimées. Les mineurs qui occupaient le fond et qui n’exigeaient que l’application du droit du travail ont été passés à tabac, des grévistes ont été torturés et poursuivis pour « entrave au travail », de même que les membres de l’Association marocaine pour les droits humains qui soutenaient leurs revendications.

      Comment, dans ces conditions, les firmes BMW et Renault osent-elles vanter leurs politiques d’achat de « cobalt responsable » ? Au regard ne serait-ce que des lois sur le devoir de vigilance des entreprises, elles auraient dû prendre connaissance de la situation réelle des mineurs et des riverains de Bou Azzer. Elles auraient dû tout mettre en œuvre pour faire cesser cette situation qui découle d’infractions caractérisées au droit du travail, de l’environnement et de la santé publique. Mieux encore, elles devraient renoncer à la production en masse de véhicules qui ne sauraient être ni soutenables ni écologiques. Les luxueuses BMW i7 pèsent 2,5 tonnes et sont équipées de batteries de 700 kg. La justice sociale et l’urgence écologique imposent aux constructeurs automobiles et aux dirigeants de prendre leurs responsabilités : adopter des mesures drastiques pour réduire le poids et le nombre des véhicules qui circulent sur nos routes. La « transition » pseudo-écologique portée par les pouvoirs publics et les milieux économiques ne doit pas ouvrir la voie au greenwashing le plus éhonté, condamnant travailleurs et riverains à des conditions de travail et d’environnement incompatibles avec la santé et la dignité humaines et renforçant des logiques néocoloniales.

      (1) Tous nos remerciements à Benjamin Bergnes, photographe, qui nous cède le droit de disposer de cette photo dans le cadre exclusif de cette tribune.

      Premiers signataires :

      Annie Thébaud-Mony, Association Henri-Pézerat

      Alice Mogwe, présidente de la Fédération internationale pour les droits humains

      Patrick Baudouin, président de la Ligue des droits de l’Homme

      Agnès Golfier, directrice de la Fondation Danielle-Mitterrand

      Lawryn Remaud, Attac France

      Jawad Moustakbal, Attac Maroc/CADTM Maroc

      Hamid Majdi, Jonction pour la défense des droits des travailleurs, Maroc

      Pascale Fouilly, secrétaire générale du syndicat national des mineurs CFDT, assimilés et du personnel du régime minier de sécurité sociale

      Marie Véron, coordinatrice de l’Alliance écologique et sociale (qui réunit les Amis de la Terre, Attac, la Confédération paysanne, FSU, Greenpeace France, Oxfam France et Solidaires)

      –-

      https://reporterre.net/BMW-et-Renault-impliques-dans-un-scandale-ecologique-au-Maroc

      https://reporterre.net/Mines-au-Maroc-la-sinistre-realite-du-cobalt-responsable

      https://reporterre.net/Au-Maroc-une-mine-de-cobalt-empoisonne-les-oasis

      https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/umweltstandards-bmw-zulieferer-kobalt-marokko-100.html

      https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/wirtschaft/bou-azzer-arsen-umweltverschmutzung-e-autos-bmw-e972346

      https://www.ndr.de/der_ndr/presse/mitteilungen/NDR-WDR-SZ-Massive-Vorwuerfe-gegen-Zulieferer-von-BMW,pressemeldungndr24278.html

      https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/schmutzige-kobalt-gewinnung-vorwuerfe-gegen-bmw-zulieferer,TvPhd4K

      https://www.dasding.de/newszone/bmw-zulieferer-marokko-verdacht-umwelt-arbeit-kobalt-100.html

      https://hawamich.info/7361

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/les-invites-de-mediapart/blog/131123/scandale-du-cobalt-responsable-de-bmw-et-renault-au-maroc

    • Scandale du cobalt marocain : lancement d’une enquête sur BMW

      À la suite de l’enquête de Reporterre et de médias internationaux sur l’extraction de « cobalt responsable » au Maroc pour les voitures électriques, l’autorité fédérale allemande de contrôle a engagé une procédure contre BMW.

      La mine de cobalt de Bou Azzer, qui alimente la production de batteries de BMW et qui doit fournir Renault à partir de 2025, intoxique les travailleurs et l’environnement. À la suite de nos enquêtes sur ce scandale, l’Office fédéral allemand du contrôle de l’économie et des exportations (Bafa) a ouvert une enquête sur le constructeur automobile BMW. Le gouvernement a confirmé cette information après une question écrite du groupe parlementaire de gauche Die Linke le 25 novembre, selon le quotidien Der Spiegel.

      L’autorité de contrôle pourrait infliger des sanctions à BMW pour avoir enfreint la loi sur le devoir de vigilance des entreprises. Depuis 2020, BMW fait la promotion de son « approvisionnement responsable » au Maroc sans avoir mené d’audit dans cette mine de cobalt et d’arsenic, comme l’a révélé notre investigation menée conjointement avec le Süddeutsche Zeitung, les chaînes allemandes NDR et WDR et le média marocain Hawamich.
      Les mineurs en danger

      Privés de leurs droits syndicaux, les mineurs y travaillent dans des conditions illégales et dangereuses ; les déchets miniers ont gravement pollué les oasis du bassin de l’oued Alougoum au sud de Ouarzazate, où l’eau des puits et les terres présentent des concentrations en arsenic plus de quarante fois supérieures aux seuils.

      En vigueur depuis janvier 2023, la loi allemande sur le devoir de vigilance vise à améliorer le respect des droits humains et de l’environnement dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement mondiales. Comme dans la loi française, les grandes entreprises ont l’obligation de prévenir, d’atténuer ou de mettre fin à d’éventuelles violations.

      Mais les moyens de contrôle de l’autorité fédérale sont ridiculement insuffisants pour faire appliquer cette loi, estime Cornelia Möhring, députée et porte-parole du parti de gauche Die Linke au Bundestag, interviewée par Reporterre : « Le cas de BMW, qui se vante d’exercer sa responsabilité environnementale et sociale “au-delà de ses usines” et qui a préféré ignorer la réalité de cette extraction, est emblématique, dit-elle. Il montre que le volontariat et l’autocontrôle des entreprises n’ont aucun sens dans un monde capitaliste. Face au scandale du cobalt, le gouvernement fédéral doit maintenant faire la preuve de sa crédibilité en ne se laissant pas piétiner par l’une des plus grandes entreprises allemandes. »

      « L’autocontrôle des entreprises n’a aucun sens »

      Le propriétaire de BMW, Stefan Qandt, est le quatrième homme le plus riche d’Allemagne, souligne Cornelia Möhring. En cas d’infraction avérée au devoir de vigilance, les sanctions maximales prévues par l’autorité de contrôle allemande sont une exclusion des marchés publics pour une durée de trois ans ou une amende allant jusqu’à 2 % du chiffre d’affaires annuel du groupe (celui de BMW était de 146 milliards d’euros en 2022). Le constructeur s’est déclaré prêt à « exiger de son fournisseur des contre-mesures immédiates » pour améliorer la situation à Bou Azzer. De son côté, la députée Cornelia Möhring estime qu’« une action en justice à l’encontre de BMW pour publicité mensongère serait bienvenue ».

      Quid de Renault, qui a signé en 2022 un accord avec l’entreprise Managem pour une fourniture en cobalt à partir de 2025 pour les batteries de ses véhicules ? Il a lui aussi fait la promotion de ce « cobalt responsable » sans avoir enquêté sur place. Interrogé par Reporterre, le constructeur automobile assure qu’« un premier audit sur site mené par un organisme tiers indépendant » sera mené « très prochainement », et qu’« en cas de non-respect des normes et engagements ESG [environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance] du groupe, des mesures correctives seront prises pour se conformer aux normes ». Reste à savoir quelles « normes » pourraient protéger les travailleurs et l’environnement dans un gisement d’arsenic inévitablement émetteur de grands volumes de déchets toxiques.

      https://reporterre.net/Scandale-du-cobalt-marocain-l-Etat-allemand-va-enqueter-sur-BMW

  • Fahrer sind Opfer organisierter Schwarzarbeit
    https://www.rbb24.de/content/rbb/r24/wirtschaft/beitrag/2023/08/mietwagenfirmen-uber-berlin-bezahlung-app.html

    Das Geschäft mit Uber-Fahrten rechnet sich nicht. Zumindest nicht für die Fahrer. Die Folgen sind Schwarzarbeit, Bezahlung unter Mindestlohn und Sozialleistungsbetrug. Eine Recherche von Kontraste und rbb24-Recherche. Von Jana Göbel und Susett Kleine

    Das Geschäfts-Modell von Mietwagenfirmen, die Fahrdienstleitungen mit Hilfe von Uber und anderen Plattformen anbieten, sei oftmals „organisierte Schwarzarbeit“ – der das sagt, ist nicht irgendwer: Axel Osmenda ist Fachgebietsleiter der Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit beim Hauptzollamt Berlin. Seine Teams sind regelmäßig auf den Berliner Straßen unterwegs, um Mietwagen, die mit dem Etikett von Uber und Bolt fahren, zu kontrollieren. Im Nachgang vergleichen und überprüfen sie dann auch die Geschäftsunterlagen der betreffenden Mietwagen-Unternehmen.

    „Ich würde schon sagen“, so Osmendas Sichtweise, „dass man versucht, in großem Umfang Arbeitnehmer zu beschäftigen und meldet die dann nicht zur Sozialversicherung an - teilweise organisiert, indem man bestimmte Firmen gründet, nur zu dem Zweck.“ Seine Behörde würde immer wieder auf dieselben Firmen und Personen stoßen. Wenn die Finanzkontrolleure des Zolls Indizien für Gesetzesverstöße sehen, schalten sie auch die Staatsanwaltschaft ein.
    Infobox

    Kündigung bei Krankheit oder Urlaub

    Einer der Betroffenen ist Ahmed. Er möchte nicht mit seinem richtigen Namen zitiert werden, deswegen wurde der Name geändert. Der Fahrer ist wütend: Viele Jahre hat er zu viel gearbeitet und zu wenig verdient. Sechs Tage pro Woche bis zu 10 Stunden am Tag sei er unterwegs. Trotzdem erhalte er nicht einmal den Mindestlohn.

    Wenn er krank sei, bekomme er kein Geld: „Mein Chef kündigt mir dann. Dann bin ich raus. Das gleiche gilt, wenn ich Urlaub mache.“ Er müsse außerdem einen Anteil seines Lohns zurückzahlen, wenn er nicht genug Einnahmen durch die Fahrten erziele, berichtet er. Sein Chef verlange darüber hinaus jeden Monat 300 Euro in bar von ihm. Die Summe werde angeblich für seine Sozialabgaben fällig, habe sein Chef ihm erzählt.

    Yasin (Name geändert), ein anderer Fahrer, erzählt ähnliches. Die Einnahmen wären so gering, sie würden nicht reichen, um davon leben zu können.

    Seit Jahren steigt die Anzahl der Fahrzeuge von Mietwagenfirmen, die sich Fahrten von Uber oder Bolt vermitteln lassen, vor allem in großen Städten. Aus der Antwort auf eine parlamentarische Anfrage geht hervor, dass mittlerweile 4.437 Mietwagen auf Berlins Straßen unterwegs sind. Der größte Teil davon kann über Apps wie Uber, Bolt oder FreeNow gebucht werden.

    Konkurrenzkampf zu Lasten der Fahrer

    Die Konkurrenz wird immer größer und durch den Konkurrenzdruck fallen die Preise. Für Kundinnen und Kunden sind das attraktive Bedingungen, doch langfristig können solche Unternehmen, deren Fahrten von Uber, Bolt und anderen vermittelt werden, wirtschaftlich wohl nicht überleben, sofern sie Löhne, Steuern und Sozialabgaben korrekt zahlen.

    Kontraste und rbb24-Recherche liegt ein Konzeptpapier für ein Gutachten vor. Die Auswertung von mehreren zehntausend Uber-Touren in Nordrhein-Westfalen legt dar, dass das Geschäft mit solchen Apps nicht dauerhaft wirtschaftlich betrieben werden könne.

    Uber und Bolt widersprechen der These

    Vertreter von Uber-Deutschland widersprechen und legen eine Beispielrechnung vor: Danach läuft das Geschäft rund, wenn 42,50 Euro je Stunde und 340 Euro am Tag eingenommen werden.

    Auch von Seiten des konkurrierenden App-Fahrtenanbieters Bolt wird die These, das Geschäft sei nicht kostendeckend zu betreiben, zurückgewiesen. Bei Bolt geht man von durchschnittlichen Tageseinnahmen von 330 Euro aus. Beide Unternehmen kalkulieren dabei mit einer regelmäßigen Auslastung der Fahrzeuge von 50 % und mehr, die Auslastung sei oft doppelt so hoch wie die konkurrierender Taxi-Unternehmen, argumentiert man bei Uber.

    Zu den berichteten Missständen erklärt ein Uber-Sprecher: „Die genannten Fälle sind uns nicht bekannt. (...) Für Uber hat gesetzeskonformes Handeln oberste Priorität.“ Die Partner seien auch vertraglich dazu verpflichtet worden, alle arbeitsrechtlichen Vorgaben einzuhalten.

    „Wenn sie sich nicht an die Regeln halten“, heißt es dazu weiter, „und wir davon Kenntnis erlangen, ziehen wir entsprechende Konsequenzen, bis hin zu einer Sperrung auf unserer Plattform.“

    Unterschiedliche Informationen zu Auslastungszahlen

    Auch Thomas Mohnke, der als Generalunternehmer Deutschland für Uber fungiert (s. Infobox oben), berichtet von einem funktionierenden Geschäft. Er erklärt, man könne bei der Schichtplanung flexibel auf Angebot und Nachfrage eingehen und wisse, an welchen Tagen besonders viele Fahrgäste unterwegs sein werden. Dementsprechend könnten die Mietwagenfirmen an diesen Tagen mehr Autos und Fahrer einsetzen. Deswegen seien die Fahrzeuge seiner eigenen Flotte zu 80-90 Prozent der Zeit ausgelastet.

    Allerdings fallen auch die ertragslosen Anfahr- und Wartezeiten in seine Auslastungsbilanz. Mohnke betont, dieses Geschäftsmodell erziele durchaus Gewinne, auch wenn sie nicht riesig seien: „Wenn Sie eine Umsatzrendite erreichen, die im Bereich von 3, 4, 5 Prozent liegen, dann ist das in unserer Branche durchaus üblich.“

    Ahmed, dessen Fahrten vor allem von der Uber-App vermittelt werden, aber auch von Bolt, hat für die Recherche die Daten eines Arbeitsmonats zur Verfügung gestellt. Hier ergibt sich ein ganz anderes Bild: Insgesamt 5127 Euro haben die Fahrgäste in diesem Beispielmonat für die Fahrten mit ihm gezahlt. Davon ziehen die App-Vermittler jeweils 25 Prozent für ihre Servicepauschale ab. Auch 19 Prozent Umsatzsteuer fallen an.

    Übrig bleiben 3026 Euro für den Mietwagenunternehmer, der durchschnittlich 116 Euro für jeden der 26 Arbeitstage von Ahmed eingenommen hat. Doch dieser Betrag reicht nicht, um ihm den Mindestlohn und die Lohnnebenkosten von insgesamt 120 Euro zu bezahlen. Eine Verlustrechnung - dabei sind die Kosten des Mietwagenunternehmers für das Auto, die Versicherung und den Betriebssitz noch nicht eingerechnet.

    Hohe Abgaben bei niedrigen Erträgen

    Im Gegensatz zu den Taxen können Plattform-Anbieter wie Uber und Bolt ihre Fahrpreise selbst festlegen und damit die Taxitarife unterbieten. Doch von den niedrigen Erträgen müssen Mietwagenunternehmer hohe Abgaben zahlen (s.o.). Gewinne gebe es für die Mietwagenfirmen nur, wenn an Lohn und Sozialabgaben unzulässig gespart würde, sagt Herwig Kollar, Präsident des Bundesverbandes Taxi und Mietwagen e.V.: „Also zu den Konditionen ist das Geschäft nicht wirtschaftlich zu betreiben“, erklärt er. Ahmeds Angaben zu seinen durchschnittlichen Einnahmen hält er für realistisch.

    Doch wer ist zuständig, wenn es um die Bekämpfung solcher Missstände geht? Sowohl der Generalunternehmer Thomas Mohnke, als auch die Sprecher von Uber Deutschland, sehen vor allem die Behörden in der Pflicht: „Deutschland hat ein gut funktionierendes Kontrollwesen der zuständigen Organe“, schreibt das Unternehmen.

    In Berlin jedoch wird das Geschäftsgebaren bisher nicht ausreichend kontrolliert. Aus den Antworten auf zahlreiche parlamentarische Anfragen des SPD-Abgeordneten Tino Schopf geht hervor, dass derzeit in der Gewerbeaufsicht im Rahmen der gewerblichen Personenbeförderung nur 16 von 19 Stellen besetzt sind.

    Seit Anfang des Jahres sei ein neues Sachgebiet für „Kontrollen und Ermittlungen“ eingerichtet worden. Von sieben Stellen ist dort bisher nur eine besetzt. Dieses Kontrollpersonal soll nun 9.960 Mietwagen, Taxen und Krankenwagen beaufsichtigen (Stand 1. August 2023).

    Vorbild Hamburg

    Ganz anders läuft es in Hamburg. Hier sind insgesamt nur 15 Mietwagen (Berlin: 4437) konzessioniert, die unter der App-Vermittlung von Uber fahren. In der Regel werden die Genehmigungen in der Hansestadt verweigert. Unter anderem findet hier eine konsequente Prüfung der finanziellen Leistungsfähigkeit statt.

    Die Unternehmen sind in Hamburg unter anderem dazu verpflichtet, einen Businessplan vorzulegen, um eine Zulassung zu bekommen (s. Kasten). Dieser ist für die Hamburger Behörde für Verkehr und Mobilitätswende oft ein Ablehnungsgrund. Von dort heißt es auf rbb-Anfrage: „Bei Ausübung der taxenähnlichen App-vermittelten Mietwagenverkehre liegen erhebliche Zweifel an einer zumindest kostendeckenden Betriebsführung vor, wenn alle abgabenrechtlichen (auch Mindestlohnvorschriften) und personenbeförderungsrechtlichen Vorschriften eingehalten werden.“

    Der ehemalige Uber-Lobbyist und Ex-Mitarbeiter des US-Unternehmens, Mark MacGann, sprach mit Kontraste und rbb24 Recherche über den Stellenwert der Fahrer im Unternehmen. MacGann wurde im vergangenen Jahr als Uber-Whistleblower bekannt, als er Medien Zugang zu über 120.000 internen Dokumenten des Unternehmens gab.

    Sein Urteil über das Uber-System: „Die Fahrer haben nicht die gleichen Rechte und Privilegien wie die anderen Mitglieder der Nahrungskette. Uber wurde nicht auf den Schultern der Fahrer aufgebaut, sondern auf deren Rücken. Und heute sehen diese Fahrer keine faire Gegenleistung für ihre Arbeit, die sie leisten.“

    –—

    Infobox 1

    So funktioniert...
    ... das Uber-System

    Uber ist ein US-amerikanisches Unternehmen, das Fahrten per App vermittelt. Doch in Deutschland gibt es eine Besonderheit. Ein Generalunternehmer, die SafeDriver Group mit Sitz in Berlin, verteilt die Fahrten, die in der Uber-App eingehen, an hunderte Mietwagenfirmen. All diese Firmen brauchen eine Lizenz, um Fahraufträge anzunehmen. Sie besitzen die Autos, Fahrerinnen und Fahrer sind bei ihnen angestellt. Die Firmen zahlen eine Provision von bis zu 25 Prozent für die Vermittlung der Fahrten direkt an Uber, so das Unternehmen. Was der Generalunternehmer für seine Tätigkeit erhält, ist nicht geklärt.

    Infobox 2

    HAMBURG
    Warum in Hamburg kaum Uber-Fahrzeuge zugelassen werden
    Begründung der Hamburger Behörde für Verkehr und Mobilitätswende:
    https://www.hamburg.de/bvm

    „Taxenähnliche App-vermittelte Mietwagenverkehre bieten in der Regel Personenbeförderungen deutlich unterhalb des Taxentarifes an. Zudem beträgt der Umsatzsteuersatz für Personenbeförderungen im Mietwagenverkehr 19%. Im Taxenverkehr hingegen ist nur ein Umsatzsteuersatz von 7 % anzuwenden. Zudem sind von den deutlich unter Taxentarif erzielten Erlösen noch Vermittlungsgebühren an den App-Anbieter abzuführen. Mietwagen können nur auf vorherige Bestellung Personenbeförderungen durchführen und müssen nach Beendigung der Personenbeförderung umgehend den Rückweg zum Betriebssitz antreten. Taxen hingegen können sich im Stadtbild bereithalten und unterliegen nicht der Rückkehrpflicht.

    Bei Ausübung der taxenähnlichen App-vermittelten Mietwagenverkehre liegen somit erhebliche Zweifel an einer zumindest kostendeckenden Betriebsführung vor , wenn alle abgabenrechtlichen (auch Mindestlohnvorschriften) und personenbeförderungsrechtlichen Vorschriften eingehalten werden, so dass die finanzielle Leistungsfähigkeit in der Regel für die beantragte Anzahl von PKW und der beantragten Genehmigungsdauer nicht positiv beurteilt werden kann und es somit oftmals gar nicht zur erstmaligen Genehmigungserteilung kommt.“

    Sendung: rbb24 Inforadio, 17.08.2023, 06:00 Uhr

    Linkk zum Beitrag auf tagesschau.de
    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/regional/berlin/rbb-fahrer-sind-opfer-organisierter-schwarzarbeit-100.html

    #Deutschland #Uber #Schwarzarbeit #Verkehr

  • Warum der gesetzliche Mindestlohn so oft unterlaufen wird
    https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mindestlohn-umsetzung-branchen-100.html

    23.05.2023 von Barbara Berner + Mindestens zwölf Euro die Stunde für alle: Das ist die Idee des verbindlichen Mindestlohns. Doch die Verbindlichkeit hat ihre Lücken. Arbeitgeber haben ihre Tricks, wie sie Mindestlöhne aushebeln können.

    Dienstagmorgen in Frankfurt: Zivilfahrzeuge des Zolls sind auf dem Weg zu einer der größten Baustellen der Stadt - eine Razzia der Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit. „Wir gehen einem Verdacht nach, gegen den Verstoß von Werksverträgen,“ sagt Arne Niestrath vom Hauptzollamt in Frankfurt. Bei ihm laufen alle Fäden zusammen. Aber es ist nicht der Verdacht allein. 260 Personen werden sie nun kontrollieren müssen, dazu die Bauleitung. Vor Ort heißt es erstmal alle personenbezogen Daten sammeln und Bauunterlagen kontrollieren.

    Später werden die Beamten Tage brauchen, alles auszuwerten. Wenn sie überhaupt alle Personen erfasst haben: Schnell spricht sich die Kontrolle auf der Baustelle herum, und dann „verschwinden auch mal Arbeiter in irgendwelchen Verstecken“, erklärt Niestrath. „Die kennen sich eben besser hier aus als wir.“ Frustration schwingt mit, während er das sagt.
    Beratung für Hilfesuchende

    Einer, der sich auf Baustellen auskennt, ist Antonio (Name von der Redaktion geändert). Wo er überall gearbeitet hat, will er nicht sagen, genauso wenig wie seinen richtigen Namen. Er ist einer der wenigen, die irgendwann mal den Weg zur Beratungsstelle „Faire Mobilität“ fanden.

    Die Beratungsstelle ist für Arbeiter aus Ost- und Mitteleuropa gedacht und dem Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbund angeschlossen. Sie informiert über Arbeitsrechte und unterstützt bei Konflikten. In seiner Muttersprache wird Antonio aufgeklärt; noch weiß er nicht, ob er den Mut aufbringt, seinem Arbeitgeber gegenüber sein Recht einzufordern.

    Der Mindestlohn steigt. mehr
    Eine undurchschaubare Behörde

    Antonio ist noch nie in eine Zollkontrolle geraten. Ob er das gut oder schlecht findet? Er weiß es nicht. Er hat keinen Arbeitsvertrag, keine festen Arbeitszeiten. Und er wird nicht pro Stunde, sondern pro Quadratmeter bezahlt. Hochgerechnet auf seine Arbeitszeit sind das mal 3,50 Euro, mal auch fünf Euro die Stunde. Aber dann räumt er doch ein, dass ihm eine Kontrolle „vielleicht geholfen“ hätte. Aber mit den Kontrollen ging es in den vergangenen zehn Jahren nach unten: deutschlandweit von knapp 63.000 auf knapp 53.000 jährlich. Ein Grund: Es fehlt Personal.

    Doch das ist es nicht allein, kritisiert Frank Buckenhofer, verantwortlich für den Bereich Zoll bei der Gewerkschaft der Polizei. Er spricht von einem „Flickenteppich“ in der Behörde. „Der Zoll hat sich im Wesentlichen als Patchwork organisiert, und - das ist eines der großen Probleme - ohne wirkliche Schlagkraft.“ Er fordert eine übergreifende Finanzpolizei mit entsprechender Befugnis.
    Oft gleich mehrere Gesetzesverstöße

    Der Mindestlohnverstoß kommt selten allein. Steuerhinterziehung, Vorenthaltung von Lohnzahlungen, von Sozialversicherungsabgaben: Bei der Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit müssen sie genau hinschauen. Tage dauert es, bis sie die erfassten Daten auf der Frankfurter Großbaustelle mit anderen Behörden abgeglichen haben.

    Die vorläufige Bilanz: 179 Verstöße gegen den Mindestlohn, 71 Scheinselbstständige, vier illegal Beschäftigte. Klingt nach großem Erfolg - doch angesichts einer Aufklärungsquote bundesweit von unter 0,5 Prozent wird die Schwäche des Systems klar.
    Bis zu drei Millionen Menschen um ihr Geld betrogen

    Laut einer Erhebung des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) werden zwischen 750.000 und mehr als drei Millionen Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer um ihr Geld betrogen. „Die Spanne ist so breit, weil illegale Aktivitäten so schwer zu erfassen sind“, sagt Johannes Seebauer vom DIW. Hinzu kommt, dass seit Einführung des Mindestlohns die Zahl der Arbeitsplätze in den Niedriglohnbranchen sogar zugenommen hat. Es trifft Minijobber, Studierende, Rentner sowie Menschen, die der deutschen Sprache nicht mächtig sind.

    Für Antonio bedeuten die Verstöße seitens des Arbeitgebers weniger Rentenbeiträge, weniger Geld im Krankheitsfall, weniger Urlaubsgeld. Zumindest offiziell. Von Urlaubsgeld hat er noch nie gehört, Geld im Krankheitsfall wurde nicht gezahlt. Nun will er sich einen anderen Job auf einer Baustelle suchen. Er will diesmal seine Rechte im Blick haben. Es wird nicht schwer sein, etwas Neues zu finden, denn Arbeiter wie er werden gerade händeringend gesucht.
    Digitale Erfassung könnte helfen

    Eine digitale Erfassung würde Betrug gegen den Mindestlohn zwar nicht unmöglich machen, aber schwieriger. Das zeigen Beispiele wie das eines Brauhauses in Oberursel. Wer Dienstbeginn hat, checkt sich ein - ob Festangestellte oder Aushilfe. Bei insgesamt fast 80 Beschäftigten bringt die digitale Stechuhr für den Wirt, Thomas Studanski, nur Vorteile: „Vorher gab es immer mal Diskussionen, ’ich war so und so lange da, ich habe die und die Zeit gearbeitet’. Das ist weg.“ Und für seinen Betriebsablauf sieht er ebenso einen Vorteil: Er muss keine Stundenzettel mehr umständlich ausfüllen.

    So sollte es eigentlich flächendeckend sein, doch weit gefehlt. Mal so eben zehn Euro bar auf die Hand anstatt zwölf Euro Mindestlohn: Das findet sich nicht nur in der Gastronomie und der Baubranche. Lohndumping ist ein Massenphänomen, und die Liste der betroffenen Branchen ist lang.

    #Arbeit #Mindestlohn

  • Abgeordnetenhauswahl Berlin 2023
    https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2023-02-12-LT-DE-BE/index.shtml
    Élection du gouvernement municipal de Berlin - les libéraux ont perdu et n’auront plus de député au parlement de la ville. La coalition SPD/Verts/Gauche peut continuer - en principe.

    La droite obtient 43,8% mais ne formera vraisemblablement pas le gouvernement. Avec un taux de participation de 65% la gauche a perdu comme toujours quand surtout les convaincus et ceux qui se portent économiquement bien participent aux scrutins.
    Demain matin on apprendra le résultat final.

    #Allemagne #Berlin #politique #élections

  • Turkey : Hundreds of Refugees Deported to Syria

    EU Should Recognize Turkey Is Unsafe for Asylum Seekers

    Turkish authorities arbitrarily arrested, detained, and deported hundreds of Syrian refugee men and boys to Syria between February and July 2022, Human Rights Watch said today.

    Deported Syrians told Human Rights Watch that Turkish officials arrested them in their homes, workplaces, and on the street, detained them in poor conditions, beat and abused most of them, forced them to sign voluntary return forms, drove them to border crossing points with northern Syria, and forced them across at gunpoint.

    “In violation of international law Turkish authorities have rounded up hundreds of Syrian refugees, even unaccompanied children, and forced them back to northern Syria,” said Nadia Hardman, refugee and migrant rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Although Turkey provided temporary protection to 3.6 million Syrian refugees, it now looks like Turkey is trying to make northern Syria a refugee dumping ground.”

    Recent signs from Turkey and other governments indicate that they are considering normalizing relations with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In May 2022, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey announced that he intends to resettle one million refugees in northern Syria, in areas not controlled by the government, even though Syria remains unsafe for returning refugees. Many of those returned are from government-controlled areas, but even if they could reach them, the Syrian government is the same one that produced over six million refugees and committed grave human rights violations against its own citizens even before uprisings began.

    The deportations provide a stark counterpoint to Turkey’s record of generosity as host to more refugees than any other country in the world and almost four times as many as the whole European Union (EU), for which the EU has provided billions of Euros in funding for humanitarian support and migration management.

    Between February and August, Human Rights Watch interviewed by phone or in person inside Turkey 37 Syrian men and 2 Syrian boys who had been registered for temporary protection in Turkey. Human Rights Watch also interviewed seven relatives of Syrian refugee men and a refugee woman whom Turkish authorities deported to northern Syria during this time.

    Human Rights Watch sent letters with queries and findings to the European Commission, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, and the Turkish Interior Ministry. Human Rights Watch received a response from Bernard Brunet, of the EU’s Directorate-General for Neighborhood and Enlargement Negotiations. The content of this letter is reflected in the section on removal centers.

    Turkish officials deported 37 of the people interviewed to northern Syria. All said they were deported together with dozens or even hundreds of others. All said they were forced to sign forms either at removal centers or the border with Syria. They said that officials did not allow them to read the forms and did not explain what the forms said, but all said they understood the forms to be allegedly agreeing to voluntary repatriation. Some said that officials covered the part of the form written in Arabic with their hands. Most said they saw authorities at these removal centers processing other Syrians in the same way.

    Many said that they saw Turkish officials beat other men who had initially refused to sign, so they felt they had no choice. Two men detained at a removal center in Adana said they were given the choice of signing a form and going back to Syria or being detained for a year. Both chose to leave because they could not bear the thought of a year in detention and needed to support their families.

    Ten people were not deported. Some were released and warned that if they did not move back to their city of registration they would be deported if found elsewhere. Others managed to contact lawyers through the intervention of family members to help secure their release. Several are still in removal centers waiting for a resolution to their case, unaware why they are being detained and fearing deportation. Those released described life in Turkey as dangerous, saying that they are staying at home with their curtains closed and limiting movement to avoid the Turkish authorities.

    Deportees were driven to the border from removal centers, sometimes in rides lasting up to 21 hours, handcuffed the whole way. They said they were forced to cross border checkpoints at either Öncüpınar/Bab al-Salam or Cilvegözü/Bab al-Hawa, which lead to non-government- controlled areas of Syria. At the checkpoint, a 26-year-old man from Aleppo recalled a Turkish official telling him, “We’ll shoot anyone who tries cross back.”

    In June 2022, the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, said that 15,149 Syrian refugees had voluntarily returned to Syria so far this year. The local authorities who control Bab al-Hawa and Bab al-Salam border crossings respectively publish monthly numbers of people crossing through their checkpoints from Turkey to Syria. Between February and August 2022, 11,645 people were returned through Bab al-Hawa and 8,404 through Bab al-Salam.

    Turkey is bound by treaty and customary international law to respect the principle of nonrefoulement, which prohibits the return of anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture or other ill-treatment, or a threat to life. Turkey must not coerce people into returning to places where they face serious harm. Turkey should protect the basic rights of all Syrians, regardless of where they are registered and should not deport refugees who are living and working in a city other than where their temporary protection ID and address are registered.

    On October 21, Dr. Savaş Ünlü, head of the Presidency for Migration Management, responded by letter to Human Rights Watch’s letter of October 3 sharing this report’s findings. Emphasizing that Turkey hosts the largest number of refugees in the world, Dr. Ünlü rejected Human Rights Watch’s findings in their totality, calling the allegations baseless. Setting out the services provided by law to people seeking protection in Turkey, he underscored that Turkey “carries out migration management in accordance with national and international law.”

    “The EU and its member states should acknowledge that Turkey does not meet its criteria for a safe third country and suspend its funding of migration detention and border controls until forced deportations cease,” Hardman said. “Declaring Turkey a ‘safe third country’ is inconsistent with the scale of deportations of Syrian refugees to northern Syria. Member states should not make this determination and should focus on relocating asylum seekers by increasing resettlement numbers.”

    Human Rights Watch focused on the deportation of Syrian refugees who had been recognized by Turkey’s temporary protection regime but whom authorities nevertheless deported or threatened with deportation to Syria in 2022. All 47 Syrian refugees whose cases were examined had been living and working in cities across Turkey, the majority in Istanbul, before they were arrested, detained, and in most cases deported. All detainees are identified with pseudonyms for their protection.

    All but two had a Turkish temporary protection ID permit when they lived in Turkey, commonly called a kimlik, which protects Syrian refugees against forced return to Syria. Several said they had both a temporary protection ID and a work permit.

    Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Migrants in Turkey

    Turkey shelters over 3.6 million Syrians and is the world’s largest refugee-hosting country. Under a geographical limitation that Turkey has applied to its accession to the UN Refugee Convention, Syrians and others coming from countries to the south and east of Turkey’s borders are not granted full refugee status. Syrian refugees are registered under a “temporary protection” regulation, which Turkish authorities say automatically applies to all Syrians seeking asylum.

    Turkey’s Temporary Protection Regulation grants Syrian refugees access to basic services including education and health care but generally requires them to live in the province in which they are registered. Refugees must obtain permission to travel between provinces. In late 2017 and early 2018, Istanbul and nine provinces on the border with Syria suspended registration of newly arriving asylum seekers.

    In February 2022, Turkey’s Deputy Interior Minister Ismail Çataklı said applications for temporary and international protection would not be accepted in 16 provinces: Ankara, Antalya, Aydın, Bursa, Çanakkale, Düzce, Edirne, Hatay, Istanbul, Izmir, Kırklareli, Kocaeli, Muğla, Sakarya, Tekirdağ, and Yalova. He also said residency permit applications by foreigners would not be accepted in any neighborhood in which 25 percent or more of the population consisted of foreigners. He reported that registration had already been closed in 781 neighborhoods throughout Turkey because foreigners in those locations exceeded 25 percent of the population.

    In June, Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu announced that from July 1 onward, the proportion would be reduced to 20 percent and the number of neighborhoods closed to foreigners’ registration increased to 1,200, with cancellation of temporary protection status of Syrians who traveled in the country without applying for permission. Many interviewees explained that they could not find employment in their city of registration and could not survive there but could find work in Istanbul.

    Rising Xenophobia in Turkey

    Over the past two years, there has been an increase in racist and xenophobic attacks against foreigners, notably against Syrians. On August 11, 2021, groups of Turkish residents attacked workplaces and homes of Syrians in a neighborhood in Ankara a day after a Syrian youth stabbed and killed a Turkish youth in a fight.

    In the lead-up to general elections in spring 2023, opposition politicians have made speeches that fuel anti-refugee sentiment and suggest that Syrians should be returned to war-torn Syria. President Erdoğan’s coalition government has responded with pledges to resettle Syrians in Turkish-occupied areas of northern Syria.

    Arrests

    Most of those interviewed were arrested on the streets of Istanbul, and others during raids in their workplaces or homes. The arresting officials sometimes introduced themselves as Turkish police officers, and all demanded to see the refugees’ identification documents.

    Under Turkey’s temporary protection regulation, Syrian refugees are required to live in the province where they first register as refugees. Seventeen of these 47 refugees were living and working in their city of registration, while the rest were living and working in a different province.

    Five refugees said they were arrested because of complaints or spurious allegations from neighbors or employers, ranging from making too much noise to being a terrorist. All refugees said these accusations had no foundation. Four of them were acquitted, released, or deported; one man is still being investigated.

    Detention

    On arrest, Syrian refugees were either taken to local police stations for a short period or directly to a removal center, usually Tuzla Removal Center in Istanbul. Other removal centers included were in Pendik, Adana, Gaziantep, and Urfa. In all cases, Turkish officials confiscated the Syrians’ telephones, wallets, and other personal belongings.

    The authorities refused refugees’ requests to call their family members or lawyers. One man who asked to speak to a lawyer said an officer at the police station said, “‘Did you commit any crime?’ When I said ‘no,’ he said, ‘Then you don’t need to call a lawyer.’”

    All said the Turkish authorities kept them in cramped, unsanitary rooms in various removal centers. Beds were limited and interviewees said they often had to share them. Refugees said they were usually divided according to nationality and were generally held with other Syrians. Boys under 18 were detained with adult men.

    While some removal centers had better conditions than others, all interviewees described a lack of adequate food and access to washroom facilities, as well as other unsanitary conditions. In Tuzla, where the majority of interviewees passed through, Syrians described being held outside in areas described as “basketball courts” for hours on end while waiting to be assigned a space, which was usually inside a cramped metal container.

    “Ahmad” described conditions at Tuzla Removal Center, where he was detained alongside unrelated children in overcrowded metal containers:

    There were six beds in my cell and two or three people had to share each bed, and in my cell, one kid was 16 and one was 17. At first there were 15 of us [in the cell] but then they added more people. We stayed 12 days without taking a shower because they didn’t have one.

    Beatings and Ill-Treatment

    All interviewees said Turkish officials in the removal centers either assaulted them or they witnessed officials kicking or beating other Syrians with their hands or wooden or plastic batons. “Fahad,” a 22-year-old man from Aleppo, described the beatings in Tuzla Removal Center:

    I was beaten in Tuzla…. I dropped my bread by accident and I tried to pick it up from the floor. An officer kicked me and I fell down. He started to beat me with a wooden stick. I couldn’t defend myself. I witnessed beatings of other people. In the evening if people smoked they were beaten. They [the guards] were always humiliating us. One man was smoking … and five guards started to beat him very hard and they made his eye black and blue and beat his back with a stick. And everyone who tried to intervene was beaten.

    “Ahmad,” a 26-year-old man from Aleppo, said Turkish police arrested him at his workplace, a tailor shop in Istanbul, and took him to Tuzla Removal Center where he was severely beaten on multiple occasions:

    I was beaten in Tuzla three times; the last time was the harshest for me. I was arguing about the fact that I should be allowed to go out of the doors of the prison, I should have been allowed time for breaks. So they [the guards] cursed me and insulted me and my family. I said I would complain to their director. I was beaten on my face with a wooden stick, and they [the guards] broke my teeth.

    Ahmad was eventually deported to northern Syria through the Bab al-Salam border crossing and is now staying in Azaz city, currently under the control of the Turkey-backed Syrian Interim Government, an opposition group, as he cannot cross into Syrian government-controlled Aleppo city because he is wanted by the Syrian army. “I fled the war [in Syria] because I am against violence,” he said. “Now they [the Turkish authorities] sent me back here. I just want to be in a safe place.”

    “Hassan,” a 27-year-old former political prisoner and survivor of torture from Damascus, was arrested at his house when his neighbors complained about the noise coming from his apartment. He spent a few months being transferred between various removal centers. At the last one, he was told to sign a voluntary return form. When he refused to sign, Hassan said, “I was put inside a cage, like a cage for a dog. It was metal … approximately 1.5 meters by one meter. When the sun hit the cage it was so hot.”

    When he was first arrested, Hassan managed to contact his wife before his phone was confiscated. She found a lawyer who helped secure his release.

    Forced to Sign “Voluntary Return” Forms

    Many deportees said Turkish officials – either removal center guards, or officials they described as “police” or “jandarma” interchangeably – used violence or the threat of violence to force them into signing “voluntary” return forms.

    Human Rights Watch gathered testimony indicating deportees were forced to sign “voluntary return” forms at removal centers in Adana, Tuzla, Gaziantep, and Diyarbakır, and a migration office in Mersin.

    “Mustafa,” a 21-year-old man from Idlib, was arrested on the streets in the Esenyurt neighborhood of Istanbul. After several days in a removal center in Pendik, he was transferred to Adana, where he was put in a small cell with 33 other Syrian men for a night. In the morning, Mustafa said, a jandarma officer came to take detainees separately to another room:

    When my turn came, they took two of us into a room where there were four officials: a jandarma, a plain-clothed man, the [Adana Removal Center] migration director, and a translator. I saw three people sitting on the floor under the table who had been taken earlier from our cell and their faces were swollen.

    The translator asked the man who was with me to sign some papers, but when he saw one was a voluntary return form he didn’t want to sign. The jandarma and the plain-clothed guy started beating him with their hands and their batons and kicked him. After about 10 minutes they tied his hands and moved him next to the men already on the floor under the table. The translator asked me if I wanted to taste what the others had tasted before me. I said no and signed the paper.

    Mustafa was later deported from Cilvegözü/Bab al-Hawa border crossing and is now staying in al-Bab city in northern Aleppo province.

    Syria Remains Unsafe for Returns

    Most people interviewed said they originated from government-controlled areas in Syria. They said they could not cross from the opposition-controlled areas of northern Syria to their places of origin for fear Syrian security agencies would arbitrarily arrest them and otherwise violate their rights. Those deported to northern Syria told Human Rights Watch they felt “stuck” there, unable to go to home or to forge a life amid the instability of clashes in northern Syria.

    “I cannot go back to Damascus because it is too dangerous,” said “Firaz,” 31, in a telephone interview, who is from the Damascus Countryside and was deported from Turkey in July 2022 and is now living in Afrin in northern Syria. “There is fighting and clashes [in Afrin]. What do I do? Where do I go?”

    In October 2021, Human Rights Watch documented that Syrian refugees who returned to Syria between 2017 and 2021 from Lebanon and Jordan faced grave human rights abuses and persecution at the hands of the Syrian government and affiliated militias, demonstrating that Syria is not safe for returns.

    While active hostilities may have decreased in recent years, the Syrian government has continued to inflict the same abuses onto citizens that led them to flee in the first place, including arbitrary detention, mistreatment, and torture. In September, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria once again concluded that Syria is not safe for returns.

    In addition to the fear of arrest and persecution, 10 years of conflict have decimated Syria’s infrastructure and social services, resulting in massive humanitarian needs. Over 13 million Syrians needed humanitarian assistance as of early 2021. Millions of people in northeast and northwest Syria, many of whom are internally displaced, rely on the cross-border flow of food, medicine, and other lifesaving assistance.

    International Law

    Turkey is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention and inhuman and degrading treatment. If Turkey detains a person to deport them but there is no realistic prospect of doing so, including because they would face harm in the destination country, or the person is unable to challenge their removal, the detention is arbitrary.

    Turkey’s treaty obligations under the European Convention, the ICCPR, the Convention Against Torture, and the 1951 Refugee Convention also require it to uphold the principle of nonrefoulement, which prohibits the return of anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture or other ill-treatment, or a threat to life.

    Turkey may not use violence or the threat of violence or detention to coerce people to return to places where they face harm. This includes Syrian asylum seekers, who are entitled to automatic protection under Turkish law, including any who have been blocked from registration for temporary protection since late 2017. It is important that it also applies to refugees who have sought employment outside the province in which they are registered. Children should never be detained for reasons solely related to their immigration status, or detained alongside unrelated adults.

    EU Funding of Turkey’s Migration Management

    The implementation of the March 2016 EU-Turkey deal, which aimed to control the number of migrants reaching the EU by sending them back to Turkey, is based on the flawed premise that Turkey would be a safe third country to which to return Syrian asylum seekers. However, Turkey has never met the EU’s safe third country criteria as defined by EU law. The recent violent deportations show that any Syrian forcibly returned from the EU to Turkey would face a risk of onward refoulement to Syria.

    In June 2021, the Greek government adopted a Joint Ministerial Decision determining that Turkey was safe third country for asylum seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Somalia.

    Turkey’s removal centers have been constructed and maintained with significant funding from the European Union. Prior to 2016, under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA I and IPA II), the EU provided more than €89 million for the construction, renovation, or other support of removal centers in Turkey. Some €54 million of this funding in 2007 and 2008 was for the construction of seven removal centers in six provinces with a capacity for 3,750 people. In 2014, it provided another €6.7 million for renovation and refurbishment of 17 removal centers. In 2015, the EU provided about €29 million for the construction of six new removal centers with a capacity for 2,400 people.

    Following the first €3 billion committed to Turkey as part of the EU-Turkey deal of March 2016, the EU’s Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRiT) provided €60 million to the then-Directorate General for Migration Management to “support Turkey in the management, reception and hosting of migrants, in particular irregular migrants detected in Turkey, as well as migrants returned from EU Member States territories to Turkey.” This funding was used for the construction and refurbishment of the Çankırı removal center and for staffing 22 other removal centers.

    The EU provided another €22.3 million to the DGMM for improving services and physical conditions in removal centers, including funding for “the safe and organized transfer of irregular migrants and refugees within Turkey,” and €3.5 million for “capacity-building assistance aimed at strengthening access to rights and services.”

    On December 21, 2021, the European Commission announced a €30 million financing decision to support the Turkish Interior Ministry’s Presidency of Migration Management’s “capacity building and improving the standards and conditions for migrants in Turkey’s hosting centers … to improve the management of reception and hosting centers in line with human rights standards and gender-sensitive approaches” and to ensure “safe and dignified transfer of irregular migrants.”

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/24/turkey-hundreds-refugees-deported-syria

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_syriens #Turquie #renvois #expulsions #retour_au_pays #déportation #arrestations #rétention #détention_administrative

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste Sur le #retour_au_pays / #expulsions de #réfugiés_syriens...
    https://seenthis.net/messages/904710

    • En Turquie entre 3,7 et 5 millions de réfugiés pour 82 à 84 millions d’habitants selon les sources. La Turquie accueille des réfugiés à hauteur de 4 à 6% de sa population.

      En UE 2,9 millions de réfugiés pour une population de 447 millions d’habitants, soit 0,6% de sa population.

      L’UE donne de l’argent à la Turquie mais cet argent doit servir à l’accueil des réfugiés, pas directement au bien être des Turcs...

      Si l’UE prenait sa part de l’accueil des réfugiés (au lieu de mettre tant d’argent dans les expulsions, et dans l’Agence Frontex coupable de crimes ignobles sur les migrants), la Turquie expulserait-elle actuellement une partie de ses réfugiés syriens vers la Syrie ?

      https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/statistics-migration-europe_fr

      https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2021/09/03/en-turquie-l-afflux-de-refugies-crispe-l-opinion_6093220_3232.html

    • Forcibly deportation | 390 refugees deported from Turkey to Syria through Bab Al-Salama crossing in a week

      SOHR sources have reported that Turkish authorities have forcibly deported 90 Syrian refugees, all carrying the temporary protection cards ”Kimlik,” to Azaz city in “Euphrates Shield” area, which is under the control of Turkish forces and their proxy factions in the northern countryside of Aleppo. The refugees, who were deported under the pretext that “they have not completed data needed for residence documents and do not have ID documents,” crossed into Syria via Bab Al-Salam crossing on the Syria-Turkey border.

      Accordingly, the number of Syrian refugees who have been forcibly deported from Turkey to Syria through Bab Al-Salama crossing in less than a week has reached 390.

      It is worth noting that Turkish authorities continue forcible deportation of Syrian refugees from Turkey to the so-called “safe zone” in northern Syria.

      https://www.syriahr.com/en/303083

    • Tägliche Angst vor Abschiebung

      In der Türkei berichten Flüchtlinge von immer größeren Anfeindungen bis hin zu willkürlichen Festnahmen durch die türkische Polizei und Abschiebungen. Das wiederum verstärkt auch die Zahl derer, die nach Europa wollen.

      Wenn Mara in Istanbul aus dem Haus geht, dann hat die Syrerin nicht nur Bauchschmerzen, sondern seit einiger Zeit richtige Angst. Vor mehr als fünf Jahren kam sie mit ihrer Familie in die Türkei. Sie ist offiziell als Flüchtling anerkannt.

      Doch seit einiger Zeit fühlt sie sich nicht mehr sicher. „Ich habe das Gefühl, dass sie jeden Tag irgendwelche neuen Regeln und Schikanen für uns Flüchtlinge aufstellen. Aber das Schlimmste ist: Sie machen uns ganz offen Angst, indem sie uns mit Abschiebungen nach Syrien drohen.“
      Leben in der Fremde

      Mara, Ende 20, heißt eigentlich anders, hat aber große Sorge, Probleme mit den türkischen Behörden zu bekommen, wenn sie hier ihren echten Namen nennt. Sie arbeitet als Übersetzerin, studiert hat sie Physik, doch ihr syrischer Abschluss wurde nicht anerkannt. Dennoch baute sie sich in der Türkei ein Leben in der Fremde auf, fühlte sich akzeptiert - anfangs.

      Denn mittlerweile schlage ihr offener Hass entgegen, sagt sie. „Vor zwei Tagen lief ich mit einer Freundin die Straße entlang. Wir unterhielten uns auf Arabisch. Plötzlich kam eine ältere Frau auf uns zu und rief: ’Ihr Hunde, geht endlich zurück in euer Land!’“

      Hetze gegen Geflüchtete

      Dass Rassismus gegen Syrer und andere Flüchtlinge aus der Region, wie dem Iran oder Afghanistan, in der Türkei in den vergangenen Jahren kontinuierlich zugenommen hat, beobachtet auch Piril Ercoban vom Verein „Mülteci Der“, einer türkischen Flüchtlingsinitiative.

      „Im vergangenen Wahlkampf wurden Flüchtlinge zu einem Instrument der Innenpolitik“, sagt sie. „In so vielen Bereichen ist man sich in der Türkei nicht einig, aber was die negative Sicht auf Flüchtlinge angeht, herrscht Einigkeit.“

      So hetzte auch der vermeintlich sozialdemokratische Oppositionsführer Kemal Kilicdaroglu immer wieder gegen Syrer, sprach von mehr als zehn Millionen Geflüchteten im Land - Zahlen fernab der Realität.

      Großangelegte Rückführungsmaßnahmen

      Das Bündnis um Staatspräsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ohnehin rechts-konservativ, stieg auf den Anti-Migrations-Zug auf und kündigte großangelegte Rückführungsmaßnahmen an. Dieses Wahlversprechen scheint nun in Gang gesetzt.

      Mara erzählt, in ihrem Stadtviertel stünden an manchen Tagen an jeder Ecke Polizisten auf der Suche nach Syrern, die illegal im Land sind, oder in einer anderen Stadt in der Türkei gemeldet. „Sie behandeln uns wie Kriminelle“, klagt Mara.

      Flucht weiter nach Europa

      Der türkische Innenminister verkündete Mitte dieser Woche neue Zahlen, die die türkische Bevölkerung beruhigen sollen, Syrer wie Mara dagegen in Angst und Schrecken versetzen. In den vergangenen vier Monaten seien mehr als 105.000 Menschen verschiedenster Nationalitäten ohne gültigen Aufenthalt des Landes verwiesen worden.

      Mara hat zwar einen gültigen Aufenthalt, kennt aber viele Geschichten von Personen, bei denen das keine Rolle gespielt habe und die dennoch festgenommen worden und in Abschiebehaft genommen worden seien.

      Eine Freundin habe diesem Druck und den Anfeindungen nicht mehr standgehalten und die Türkei vor einiger Zeit verlassen. „Sie hat alles zurückgelassen und hat sich in die EU aufgemacht“, erzählt Mara. Seitdem habe sie nichts mehr von ihr gehört. Sie wisse nicht einmal, ob die Freundin noch lebe.

      Milliardenhilfen für Aufnahme

      Ein Blick auf die offiziellen Zahlen der türkischen Regierung zeigt: Die Zahl der registrierten syrischen Flüchtlinge in der Türkei nimmt seit einiger Zeit immer weiter ab. Waren es im März 2020 noch rund 3,6 Millionen, ist der letzte Stand von September 2023 bei unter 3,3 Millionen - das ist der tiefste Stand seit sieben Jahren.

      Damals zeigte das im Frühjahr 2016 geschlossene EU-Türkei-Abkommen Wirkung: Die EU versprach Milliardenhilfen, im Gegenzug verpflichtete sich die Türkei, Fluchtrouten abzuriegeln und die Bürgerkriegsflüchtlinge zu versorgen. Beide Seiten halten sich schon seit mehr als drei Jahren nicht mehr an bestimmte Vereinbarungen.

      Hass und Diskriminierung

      Piril Ercoban vom Flüchtlingsverein erklärt, die türkische Regierung verwehre syrischen Flüchtlingen seit Sommer 2022 die Anerkennung. „Zum anderen treiben sie wirtschaftliche Faktoren, aber auch der Hass ihnen gegenüber und diskriminierende Richtlinien zur Rückkehr in ihr Heimatland oder zur Flucht nach Europa, trotz aller Gefahren.“

      Auch scheint das Recht auf Asyl und Gründe wie Verfolgung im Heimatland keine Rolle mehr zu spielen. „Es gibt Berichte, wo erheblich Druck auf Migranten ausgeübt worden sein soll, Formulare zur freiwilligen Rückkehr zu unterschreiben - in sehr aggressiver Form“, sagt Ercoban.

      „Wir durften niemanden anrufen“

      Davon berichtet auch Hamid aus dem Iran, der aus politischen Gründen nicht dorthin zurück kann. Nach einer Auseinandersetzung mit seinem türkischen Vermieter hätten Polizisten vor seiner Tür gestanden und ihn festgenommen. Er glaubt, er sei denunziert worden. Erst sei er auf eine Polizeiwache gekommen, dann in ein Abschiebezentrum, erzählt er.

      Zwei Tage habe er mit Hunderten anderen Männern im Freien verbracht, auf Beton. „Wir durften niemanden anrufen, weder Familie noch Anwälte. Wir waren da zwei Tage lange eingepfercht in diesem Käfig, es hat immer wieder geregnet und die Polizisten haben uns nur ausgelacht und geflucht.“

      Am dritten Tag sei er in eine überfüllte Zelle gebracht worden. Auf dem Weg dorthin seien ihm EU-Embleme an den Wänden aufgefallen. Im Nachhinein erfährt er: Das Zentrum wurde auch mithilfe von Geldern aus dem EU-Türkei-Abkommen finanziert. Irgendwann sagen ihm Beamte, wenn er ein Formular unterschreibe, komme er sofort raus.

      Das Formular: die Einwilligung zur Abschiebung. Hamid weigert sich. Über die kommenden Tage seien die Drohungen so groß geworden, dass er mit dem Gedanken gespielt habe, zu unterschreiben. Gerade noch rechtzeitig habe ihn seine türkische Freundin ausfindig gemacht und einen Anwalt eingeschaltet. Der habe ihn freibekommen und die Deportation verhindert - vorerst. Die türkische Regierung streitet Fälle wie den von Hamid ab.
      „Türsteher für Europa“

      In der EU, wo es in der Vergangenheit auch wiederholt Berichte über Misshandlungen von Migranten durch Behörden gab, nimmt man die Fälle in der Türkei wahr, mehr nicht. Längst liegen Ideen über ein aktualisiertes Abkommen mit der Türkei auf dem Tisch.

      „Wir sahen diese Vereinbarungen schon immer als unmoralisch an“, sagt Piril Ercoban. „Damals interessierte das niemanden.“ Doch die Zeiten haben sich geändert: Inzwischen lehnen große Teile der türkischen Bevölkerung das Abkommen ab, wenn auch nicht zwangsläufig aus moralischen Gründen.

      „Wir sind die Türsteher für Europa“, schrieb vor einigen Monaten eine junge Türkin in den sozialen Medien. „Und kommen selbst nicht mal rein.“ Ein Versprechen der EU war die Visafreiheit für türkische Staatsbürger, bis heute gibt es sie aus verschiedenen Gründen nicht.
      Tägliche Angst abgeschoben zu werden

      Hamid und Mara sind die politischen Umstände nicht wichtig. Sie leben derzeit von Tag zu Tag und spielen nun beide mit dem Gedanken, die Türkei zu verlassen. Ihre Heimatländer kommen nicht in Frage, es bleibt derzeit nur Europa, sagt Mara. Dass die Anfeindung auch dort stetig zunehmen, wissen beide.

      Auch die Zustände in den Lagern auf den griechischen Inseln kennen sie. Dennoch wägen sie nun ab: Jeden Tag ins Angst leben, abgeschoben zu werden, oder doch eine aus ihrer Sicht bisher ungenutzte Chance auf Freiheit wagen?

      https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/tuerkei-syrien-migration-100.html

  • Urteil zur Arbeitszeiterfassung: Zurück zur Stechuhr | tagesschau.de
    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/arbeitszeiterfassung-stechuhr-urteil-bundesarbeitsgericht-101.html

    13.9.2022 von Wolfgang Hentschel, MDR- Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser: Nach einem Urteil des Bundesarbeitsgerichts sind Arbeitgeber verpflichtet, die Arbeitszeit ihrer Mitarbeiter zu erfassen. Das kann weitreichende Auswirkungen haben.Betriebsräte in Unternehmen können auf eine elektronische Arbeitszeiterfassung pochen. Das hat das Bundesarbeitsgericht in Erfurt in einem Grundsatzurteil entschieden.Fachleute rechnen damit, dass das Urteil des höchsten deutschen Arbeitsgerichts (1ABR 22/21) weitreichende Auswirkungen auf die bisher in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung tausendfach praktizierten Vertrauensarbeitszeitmodelle bis hin zu mobiler Arbeit und Homeoffice haben wird.Die Pflicht von Arbeitgebern zur systematischen Erfassung der Arbeitszeiten ihrer Beschäftigten begründete die Präsidentin des Gerichts, Inken Gallner, mit der Auslegung des deutschen Arbeitsschutzgesetzes nach dem sogenannten Stechuhr-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs (EuGH). Nach dem deutschen Arbeitszeitgesetz müssen bisher nur Überstunden und Sonntagsarbeit dokumentiert werden, nicht die gesamte Arbeitszeit.

    Änderung des Arbeitszeitgesetzes immer noch in ArbeitDie Entscheidung fiel nach Verhandlung eines Falls aus Nordrhein-Westfalen, bei dem ein Betriebsrat mit der Forderung scheiterte, ein Initiativrecht zur Einführung eines elektronischen Zeiterfassungssystems zu bekommen. Eine betriebliche Mitbestimmung oder ein Initiativrecht sei ausgeschlossen, wenn es bereits eine gesetzliche Verpflichtung zur Arbeitszeiterfassung gibt, begründete das Bundesarbeitsgericht seine Entscheidung.Mit seinem Grundsatzurteil preschte das Bundesarbeitsgericht in der Debatte um die Änderung des deutschen Arbeitszeitgesetzes vor. Die Bundesregierung arbeitet noch daran, die EuGH-Vorgaben von 2019 zur Einführung einer objektiven, verlässlichen und zugänglichen Arbeitszeiterfassung in deutsches Recht umzusetzen.Die Vorsitzende Richterin des Ersten Senats verwies auf einen Passus im Arbeitsschutzgesetz, der Arbeitgeber verpflichte, ein System einzuführen, mit dem die von den Arbeitnehmern geleistete Arbeitszeit erfasst werden kann. „Wenn man das deutsche Arbeitsschutzgesetz mit der Maßgabe des Europäischen Gerichtshofs auslegt, dann besteht bereits eine Pflicht zur Arbeitszeiterfassung“, sagte Gallner in der Verhandlung.

    #Arbeitsrecht #Urteil #Bundesarbeitsgericht #Arbeitszeit

  • Uber Files: Deutsche Lobbyisten im Dienste eines US-Konzerns | tagesschau.de
    https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/uber-files-105.html

    10.07.2022 von Petra Blum, Andreas Braun, WDR, Catharina Felke und Benedikt Strunz, NDR - Ein Datenleck zeigt, wie Uber auch in Deutschland alles daran setzte, Politik und Öffentlichkeit zu beeinflussen. Unterstützung erhielt der Konzern von ehemaligen Politikern und Wissenschaftlern.

    Als Uber 2014 in deutschen Großstädten stärker Fuß fassen will, trifft der US-Konzern auf massiven Widerstand. Uber vermittelt über eine App Fahrdienste, einer davon, UberPOP, zielte darauf ab, dass künftig nicht nur Taxis, sondern auch Privatpersonen Fahrgäste befördern können. Das internationale Unternehmen, das im vergangenen Jahr 17 Milliarden US-Dollar umgesetzt hat, verlangt dafür eine satte Vermittlungsgebühr.

    Mit dem Angebot, das zum Kerngeschäft von Uber zählte, stellte sich der Konzern in direkte Konkurrenz zum regulierten deutschen Taxi-Markt. Das Dumme nur: Deutsche Gerichte sehen in Uber nicht nur ein digitales Start-up, das lediglich eine App zur Verfügung stellt, sondern vielmehr einen Fahrdienst, der deshalb, ebenso wie Taxis, eine Lizenz benötige und dafür auch örtliche Niederlassungen gründen müsste. Infolge wäre der US-Konzern in Deutschland damit voll steuerpflichtig.

    Die Uber Files zeigen nun erstmals, wie groß der Druck des US-Konzerns damals tatsächlich war. Von „Krisenzeit“ ist die Rede und Ubers Cheflobbyist für Europa mahnt: „Wenn wir Deutschland verlieren, verlieren wir Europa“.

    Die Uber Files

    Die Uber Files bestehen aus mehr als 124.000 vertraulichen Dokumenten, die eine anonyme Quelle dem „Guardian“ zugespielt hat. Sie dokumentieren insbesondere die Praktiken und internen Anstrengungen des US-Konzerns im Bereich des Lobbying von 2013 bis 2017, einer Zeit in der Uber aggressiv weltweit expandierte. Koordiniert durch das Internationale Konsortium Investigativer Journalistinnen und Journalisten (ICIJ) und dem „Guardian“ hat ein internationales Team von mehr als 180 Journalistinnen und Journalisten die Uber Files in den vergangenen Monaten ausgewertet. An den Recherchen waren unter anderem „Le Monde“, die „Washington Post“, der „Indian Express“, „El Pais“ und zahlreichen andere beteiligt. In Deutschland arbeiteten Reporterinnen und Reporter von NDR, WDR und „Süddeutscher Zeitung“ an dem Uber Files.
    „Du hast das Sagen, mein Freund“

    Das Unternehmen aus Kalifornien setzte in der Folge alles daran, die bestehende Gesetzeslage sowie die öffentliche Meinung in Deutschland zum eigenen Vorteil zu beeinflussen. Zeitweise kümmerten sich gleich vier Agenturen parallel um Ubers Auftritt in Deutschland, die monatlichen Kosten dafür betrugen mehr als 150.000 Euro. Koordiniert wurde die beispiellose Lobby-Kampagne zwischenzeitlich von dem heutigen haushaltspolitischen Sprecher der FDP im Bundestag, Otto Fricke.

    Fricke ist Rechtsanwalt und war von 2002 bis 2013 Abgeordneter im Bundestag. Kurz nach seinem Ausscheiden stieg er bei der Münchener Lobbyagentur CNC Communications & Network Consulting (heute heißt das Unternehmen Kekst CNC) als Partner ein und übernahm dort die Verantwortung für Uber. Nur von September 2014 bis März 2015 sei er für den Konzern tätig gewesen, teilte Fricke auf Anfrage mit.

    Daniel Freund, der für die Grünen im Europaparlament sitzt, nannte den Vorgang um Kroes in einer Pressemitteilung „den nächsten Brüsseler Lobbyskandal“. Es sei ungeheuerlich, dass sich eine EU-Kommissarin für Lobbyarbeit habe einspannen lassen, obwohl „ihr das zuvor dezidiert nicht genehmigt wurde“.

    Seine Aufgabe habe vor allem darin bestanden, die Dienstleistungen weiterer Beratungsunternehmen zu strukturieren. „Du hast das Sagen, mein Freund“, schrieb Ubers Cheflobbyist für Europa in einer E-Mail an Fricke. Und Fricke lieferte: Er bot an, SMS an den damaligen Bundesverkehrsminister Alexander Dobrindt zu schicken, er traf verschiedene Parlamentarische Staatssekretäre, einen Abteilungsleiter im Verkehrsministerium und sprach mit Jens Spahn.
    Fragwürdige Seitenwechsel zwischen Politik und Lobbyismus

    „Otto Fricke ist ein Beispiel dafür, wie frühere Spitzenpolitiker eben nicht in ihren erlernten Beruf zurückkehren, sondern ihr politisches Netzwerk zahlungskräftigen Kunden zur Verfügung stellen“, sagt Timo Lange vom Verein Lobby Control. Zwar gebe es seit einigen Jahren Karenzregeln für Minister und Staatssekretäre und auch das Lobbyregister verhelfe zu mehr Transparenz. Allerdings bräuchte es auch eine Diskussion über eine Karenzzeit für Abgeordnete und zwar „insbesondere, wenn sie in explizite Lobbyjobs wechseln“.

    Fricke, der direkt nach seiner Tätigkeit als Lobbyist im Oktober 2017 wieder zurück in die Politik wechselte, betont, er habe die entsprechenden Themenbereiche weder damals noch heute im Bundestag verantwortet. Er nehme die „Trennung zwischen meiner vorherigen Tätigkeit für CNC und meinem politischen Mandat als Abgeordneter (...) sehr ernst.“ Andreas Polk, Professor an der Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin, forscht zu Lobbyismus. Er bewertet einen mehrmaligen Seitenwechsel zwischen Politik und Lobbyismus kritisch: „Illegal ist das sicherlich nicht, aber wollen wir solche Abgeordnete haben? Ich denke eigentlich eher nicht.“
    Versuch der direkten Einflussnahme auf die Politik

    Das zentrale Ziel der viele Hunderttausend Euro schweren deutschen Kampagne war jedenfalls klar: Das Personenbeförderungsgesetz, das Ubers Kerngeschäft verhinderte, sollte im Sinne des US-Konzerns geändert werden. Uber wies Fricke und das deutsche Team in einer E-Mail an, absolutes Stillschweigen über die Tätigkeit für das Unternehmen zu bewahren. In täglichen Telefonaten und wöchentlichen Reports analysierten die Lobbyisten die mediale Berichterstattung, dokumentierten Treffen, teilten Briefings und planten nächste Schritte.

    Im Fokus stand für die Kommunikationsberater die direkte Einflussnahme auf die Politik. Akribisch trugen sie Daten zu Entscheidungsträgern zusammen, die für den Konzern wichtig sein könnten, vom damaligen Verkehrsminister Dobrindt und seiner Staatssekretärin Dorothee Bär, über Bundestags- und Landtagsabgeordnete und Bürgermeister bis hin zu Mitarbeitern von Landratsämtern.

    In Schaubildern wurden die Akteure in zwei Kategorien sortiert: Wie mächtig ist die Person und inwieweit wird sie als Uber-freundlich eingeschätzt. Nicht selten fanden sich zu den jeweiligen Personen äußerst persönliche Einschätzungen. „Neigt zur Untätigkeit, ist aber vielleicht durch den großen Namen [gemeint ist Uber] beeindruckt“, ist etwa zu einer Landratsmitarbeiterin in Bayern vermerkt.
    Lobbyisten versprechen sich viel von Treffen mit Bär

    Laut Uber Files haben die Uber-Berater in Deutschland von 2013 bis 2017 Hunderte Gespräche mit Politikern, hochrangigen Beamten und Journalisten geführt. Besonders viel versprachen sich die Lobbyisten dabei von Dorothee Bär. Nachdem der damalige Verkehrsminister Dobrindt offenbar deutlich gemacht hatte, mit der Thematik nichts zu tun haben zu wollen, konzentrierte man sich auf die Parlamentarische Staatssekretärin. Es kam zu einigen Treffen, ein Grundsatzpapier wurde vorgelegt, auch Fricke traf sich mit Bär. Und als diese gemeinsam mit Minister Dobrindt im Oktober 2015 das Silicon Valley besuchte, stand auch ein Treffen in der Uber Zentrale an.

    Die Uber Files zeigen, dass man sich auf den Besuch Bärs vorbereitet hatte. Man wolle ihr besonders viel Aufmerksamkeit schenken, „viel Liebe“, nannte es damals Ubers Cheflobbyist für Europa. Fünf Monate später schrieb ein Uber-Vertreter, das Blatt wende sich. Es hatte erneut ein Treffen mit Bär gegeben und dabei soll sich die Politikerin angeblich damit einverstanden gezeigt haben, das Personenbeförderungsgesetz sukzessive zu ändern. Trotz mehrmaliger Anfragen wollte sich Bär zu keinem Punkt äußern. Dobrindt erklärte, dass es keinerlei Änderungen des Personenbeförderungsgesetzes gegeben habe.
    Versuch der Einflussnahme auf öffentliche Meinung

    Aber auch die öffentliche Meinung war für Fricke und sein Team ein entscheidender Baustein. In den Daten finden sich zahlreiche Hinweise darauf, wie Uber versucht hat, mit einflussreichen Medienunternehmen strategische Aktiendeals abzuschließen, um beispielsweise für Beteiligungen Werbung zu erhalten. Auch Aufträge an Wissenschaftler und Juristen waren Teil von Ubers Kampagne, darunter ein Gutachten des ehemaligen Verteidigungsministers und heutigen Verfassungsrechtler Rupert Scholz. Das Unternehmen hoffte damit im Rechtsstreit um sein Angebot punkten zu können.

    Auf Bitte der Konzern-Anwälte nahm der Verfassungsrechtler offenbar Änderungen an dem bereits fertiggestellten Gutachten vor, die zwar nicht Gegenstand des zu untersuchenden Rechtsgebiets waren, die Uber aber in die politische Debatte einführen wollte. Diesen Eindruck erwecken die Uber Files. Scholz reagierte auf mehrmalige Anfragen nicht.
    Widerstand von Taxifirmen erfolgreich

    Trotz aller Bemühungen um Politik, Wissenschaft und Medien kam Ubers Deutschlandkampagne nicht voran. Das Land sei einer unserer schwierigsten Märkte weltweit, schrieb ein hochrangiger Uber-Mitarbeiter 2015. Die Gründe dafür lagen aus Ubers Sicht unter anderem am „erbitterten Widerstand von Taxi Deutschland“. Der Verbund aus Taxiunternehmen hatte mehrmals gegen Ubers Angebot geklagt und Recht bekommen.

    Im Herbst 2014 war der Frust offenbar so groß, dass der Konzern in Erwägung zog, eine Privatdetektei zu beauftragen, negative Informationen über die Vorstände von Taxi Deutschland zu sammeln. Wenige Wochen später wurde tatsächlich ein Dossier übermittelt, in dem sich zurückliegende Rechtsstreitigkeiten und Anschuldigungen gegen die damaligen Taxi Deutschland-Vorstände finden. Inwieweit es eingesetzt wurde, geht aus den Daten nicht hervor. Taxi Deutschland zeigte sich auf Anfrage empört von dieser Vorgehensweise und spricht von „Mafia-Methoden“.
    Ubers Auftreten in Deutschland problematisch

    Das aggressive Auftreten des US-Konzerns stellte zusätzlich ein Problem dar. Trotz mehrfach anders lautender Gerichtsurteile bot Uber seinen Service UberPOP eine ganze Weile weiterhin in deutschen Städten an und überlegte sich zudem „kreative Wege“, um seine Fahrer heimlich weiterhin zu bezahlen, im Wissen, dass dies der damals gültigen Gesetzeslage widersprach.

    Fricke empfand Ubers Auftreten in Deutschland offenbar zunehmend als problematisch. „Otto möchte einen etwas versöhnlicheren Ansatz verfolgen, der möglicherweise im Widerspruch zu unserem bevorzugten Ansatz steht“, heißt es in einer E-Mail. Fricke bestätigte, dass er dem Konzern empfohlen habe, „in Deutschland eine andere Markteintrittsstrategie zu verfolgen als zuvor in den USA“ und alle Beteiligten anzuhören.

    Auf Nachfrage teilte Uber mit, dass sich das Unternehmen in den vergangenen fünf Jahren grundlegend gewandelt habe, zudem habe man „das Geschäftsmodell bereits elementar verändert und an den deutschen Regulierungsrahmen angepasst.“ Mit politischen Entscheidungsträgern tausche man sich heute „respektvoll und mit gegenseitigem Verständnis“ aus.

    Der US-Konzern trat seit 2015 tatsächlich gemäßigter auf und änderte auch sein Angebot an Fahrdiensten, in Berlin bietet man heute sogar Fahrten mit Taxifahrern an. „We hate it obviously“, hieß es dazu 2016 in einer E-Mail.

  • Covid-19 : la France suspend à titre préventif l’utilisation du vaccin d’AstraZeneca
    https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2021/03/15/covid-19-astrazeneca-defend-son-vaccin-suspendu-par-plusieurs-pays-commandes

    A son tour, la France a décidé lundi de « suspendre par précaution » l’utilisation du vaccin d’AstraZeneca contre le Covid-19, en attendant un avis de l’Agence européenne des médicaments (AEM) qui sera rendu mardi après-midi, a annoncé Emmanuel Macron lors d’une conférence de presse à Montauban (Tarn-et-Garonne). Le chef de l’Etat suit ainsi l’exemple de plusieurs autres pays européens, dont l’Allemagne et l’Italie, qui ont constaté des effets secondaires, notamment l’apparition de caillots sanguins, chez des personnes vaccinées
    […]
    Lors d’une conférence de presse avec le premier ministre espagnol, Pedro Sanchez, à l’issue d’un sommet franco-espagnol, M. Macron a esperé que la vaccination avec le produit d’AstraZeneca reprenne vite « si l’avis de l’autorité européenne le permet ». L’AEM doit rendre mardi après-midi un avis sur le recours à ce vaccin après que plusieurs pays européens ont décidé de le suspendre.

    Lors d’un entretien sur la plate-forme Twitch, le premier ministre, Jean Castex, avait estimé dimanche soir qu’il fallait avoir « confiance » dans le vaccin d’AstraZeneca. « Sinon on aura des retards dans la vaccination, les Françaises et Français seront moins protégés et la crise sanitaire durera longtemps », avait argué le chef du gouvernement.

    Le ministre de la santé, Olivier Véran, avait également estimé jeudi qu’il n’y avait « pas lieu » de suspendre l’administration de ce vaccin, estimant que le risque de caillots sanguins n’était statistiquement pas plus fort chez les patients vaccinés avec AstraZeneca que chez les autres. Pour autant, avait-il ajouté, « chaque dossier est analysé » pour déterminer s’il existe « un lien de causalité avec la vaccination ».

  • Migrations : l’agence européenne #Frontex mise en cause pour des #refoulements en mer

    Des investigations menées par plusieurs médias dénoncent les pratiques illégales des #gardes-frontières_grecs impliquant parfois l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières.

    Une enquête de plusieurs médias, dont le magazine allemand Spiegel, affirme que Frontex, l’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières, est impliquée dans plusieurs incidents de refoulement en mer de bateaux de demandeurs d’asile traversant la mer Egée entre la Turquie et la Grèce.

    Les investigations menées « montrent pour la première fois que les responsables de Frontex sont conscients des pratiques illégales des gardes-frontières grecs – et sont en partie impliqués dans les refoulements eux-mêmes », écrit le Spiegel dans un article disponible en ligne samedi 24 octobre.
    Les journalistes assurent avoir documenté six cas survenus depuis avril en mer Egée dans lesquels des équipes de Frontex ont au minimum assisté sans réagir à des refoulements vers la Turquie de bateaux de réfugiés se trouvant dans les eaux grecques, une pratique illégale. Dans un cas, en juin, une vidéo montre un navire de Frontex bloquant un bateau de réfugiés, puis, dans une autre scène enregistrée, passant devant le bateau de réfugiés à grande vitesse avant de quitter les lieux.

    Des dizaines de vidéos, d’images satellites, de récits comparés

    Outre le Spiegel, les recherches ont été menées par un magazine de la chaîne allemande ARD, le collectif de journalistes Lighthouse Reports, la plate-forme d’investigations Bellingcat et la chaîne de télévision japonaise TV Asahi. Les auteurs expliquent avoir comparé des « dizaines » de vidéos, d’images satellites, de récits de témoins oculaires, dont des réfugiés et des employés de Frontex. L’agence européenne de surveillance des frontières a engagé plus de 600 agents en Grèce, une des portes d’entrée de l’Union européenne, ainsi que des bateaux, des drones et des avions, selon l’article.

    Frontex n’a pas commenté les cas précis soulevés par la recherche, explique le Spiegel, mais a déclaré que ses agents étaient liés par un code de conduite en matière de droits de l’homme et respectaient l’interdiction des refoulements. Sans mentionner l’article, Frontex a annoncé vendredi soir sur son compte Twitter avoir été « en contact avec les autorités grecques à propos d’incidents en mer ces derniers mois » et qu’Athènes avait ouvert une « enquête interne ». Frontex agit « dans le respect des droits fondamentaux et de la loi internationale », souligne l’agence sur Twitter.
    Le gouvernement conservateur grec a toujours rejeté les allégations de refoulements illégaux à ses frontières dont font régulièrement état plusieurs organisations non gouvernementales.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2020/10/24/migrations-l-agence-europeenne-frontex-mise-en-cause-pour-des-refoulements-e
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #push-backs #refoulements #Mer_Egée #Grèce #Turquie

    ping @isskein @karine4

    • Frontex at Fault : European Border Force Complicit in ‘Illegal’ Pushbacks

      Vessels from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, have been complicit in maritime “pushback” operations to drive away refugees and migrants attempting to enter the European Union via Greek waters, a joint investigation by Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asahi has found.

      Open source data suggests Frontex assets were actively involved in one pushback incident at the Greek-Turkish maritime border in the Aegean Sea, were present at another and have been in the vicinity of four more since March.

      Although Frontex assets were not at the immediate scene of those latter four incidents, the signature of a pushback is distinctive, and would likely have been visible on radar, with visual tools common on such vessels or to the naked eye.

      The Greek Coast Guard (HCG) has long been accused of illegal pushbacks.

      These are described by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), a legal and educational non-profit, as incidents where refugees and migrants are forced back over a border without consideration of individual circumstances and without any possibility to apply for asylum or to put forward arguments against the measures taken.

      In the Aegean Sea, pushbacks generally occur in two ways. The first type is the most common: Dinghies travelling from Turkey to Greece are blocked from landing on Greek soil by the HCG. This could mean either physically blocking the dinghy until it runs out of fuel, or disabling the engine. After the engine no longer works the dinghy can then either be pushed back into Turkish territorial water with waves, or towed if the wind is not favourable.

      The second type of pushback is employed when people have managed to land on Greek soil. In this case they are detained, placed in a liferaft with no means of propulsion, towed into the middle of the Aegean Sea and then abandoned.

      Pushbacks will often result in standoffs between the HCG and Turkish Coast Guard (TCG), both of which will standby, refusing to aid dinghies in distress and carrying out unsafe manoeuvres around them.

      The role of Frontex assets in such incidents, however, has never been recorded before.

      Dana Schmalz, an international law expert at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg said the incidents highlighted in this investigation were likely “illegal” and “violate the prohibition of refoulement and maritime law.” The prohibition of refoulement refers to rules banning the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers and is described by the UN Refugee Agency as a “rule of customary international law.”

      Schmalz added that if Frontex personnel stopped an overcrowded dinghy of the type seen in footage documented during this investigation, they would be obliged to rescue its occupants immediately. “If they don’t do that, even make waves [or] instead drive away and then let the Greeks do the dirty work – then they are involved in the illegal pushback.”

      Despite being presented with numerous examples of the practice, a spokesperson for the Greek Maritime Ministry Greek denied claims of pushbacks, describing allegations of illegal actions relating to the incidents documented in this article as “tendentious.” They added that HCG officers act in compliance with the country’s international obligations.

      Frontex said that the host states it works with have the final say in how operations on its territory or search and rescue zone are carried out. However, it added that Frontex had notified HCG which confirmed an internal inquiry had been launched into each of the reported incidents. Yet Frontex did not say when it notified HCG or when the inquiry had begun.

      On July 24, the director of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, told the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) at the European Parliament that the agency had observed and recorded just a single incident which may have been a pushback in the Aegean.

      Our investigation — which looked at the presence of Frontex assets in the Aegean Sea and observed their movements over many months — appears to contradict that assertion.

      This was despite the difficulty in tracking many Frontex assets because their transponder information was either not registered, not turned on, or was out of range. As such, we were only able to view a snapshot of Frontex operations.

      Frontex, an agency of the European Union, is tasked with border control of the Schengen Area. Its activities in the Aegean are called Operation Poseidon.
      How we Recorded Pushbacks: Identification of Assets

      There were two main steps to establishing that Frontex had participated in pushback operations. The first was to identify what assets had been deployed in Operation Poseidon. The second was to establish whether these assets had participated in pushback operations.

      The first step was carried out using open sources. These included social media posts, vessel tracking sites and information published by Frontex itself. We were also able to establish the number of personnel and assets present in the operational area thanks to questions asked in the European Parliament.

      According to this response, Operation Poseidon has 185 personnel, one offshore patrol vessel (OPV), eight coastal patrol boats (CPB), one coastal patrol vessel (CPV), four thermal vision vehicles (TVV) and three patrol cars.

      There is also a “Rapid Border Intervention”, which contains additional assets on top of those dedicated to Operation Poseidon. This includes 74 personnel, two CPBs, two CPVs, one helicopter and three TVVs.

      In total we used open sources to identify 22 assets, including vessels, helicopters and planes, which operated in the Aegean during 2020. Although this is more than the total given in the answer to parliamentary questions above, some of these assets were rotating in or out of theater.
      Tracking Assets

      Some assets featured regularly on the open source record. For example, Romanian and Bulgarian vessels regularly transit through the Bosphorus strait, where there is an active ship-spotting community. As such it was possible to identify their operational rotations, including vessels heading to and returning from deployments roughly every three months. However, other assets were more difficult to track, and their presence on the open source record consisted of a single image or video.


      https://twitter.com/YorukIsik/status/1262417193083510784

      In order to track these assets and identify if they had participated in pushbacks, we required far more data than was available on social media. As such, we turned to AIS and transponder data, publicly available information about the location of particular ships or aircraft, available through sites such as Marine Traffic or Flight Radar 24.

      Many of the assets we identified either did not have their information publicly listed, or appeared to only turn on their transponders under certain circumstances, such as when in port. This made them extremely difficult to track. However, some assets did have their transponders on. We began to collect this data, buying additional, more granular data from ship and flight tracking companies on dates when pushbacks had been reported.

      We combined this tracking data with our own database of reported pushbacks, which we obtained through both public reports and information collected by NGOs such as Consolidated Rescue Group (CRG), Monitoring Rescue Cell (MRC) and Alarm Phone, who track these events. These included the coordinates of reported pushback events, frequently sent by the occupants of the dinghies. By overlaying these datasets we identified multiple pushback incidents in which Frontex assets were in the vicinity. Once we had identified these priority incidents we could then examine the specifics of what had happened.
      Incidents

      Using this data we identified six pushback incidents since March in which Frontex assets were either in the vicinity or participated directly. We have separated these into four “proximity incidents,” where Frontex assets were within five kilometers of the incident, and two “confirmed incidents,” where we can be certain that Frontex were present at the site of pushbacks themselves.
      Proximity Incidents

      April 28-29: In an incident we have previously reported, a group of refugees and migrants made landfall on Samos. They claim they were then detained, placed in a life-raft without any means of propulsion and towed into the middle of the Mycale Strait. A surveillance plane overflew the area twice while this pushback took place.

      June 4: Two dinghies were reported to have been pushed back from Northern Lesbos. Portuguese vessel Nortada appears to have been present around 15 kilometers from the first incident and just over one kilometer away from the second.

      June 5: A dinghy was reported to have been pushed back from Northern Lesbos. Portuguese vessel Nortada was approximately two to three kilometers away.

      August 19: A dinghy was reported to have been pushed back from Northern Lesbos. Portuguese vessel Molivos was five kilometers away and appears to have changed course and headed towards the pushback before its transponder either lost signal or was turned off.

      In these cases, Frontex assets were recorded as being within a certain range, rather than participating directly. Their exact knowledge of what was happening at these distances is difficult to confirm. Operation Poseidon’s mission includes a significant number of tasks requiring surveillance, and its assets are able to use both radar and visual tools, such as low-light or infrared cameras, to observe the environment around them.

      For example, we know that the Molivos is equipped with an FLIR camera similar to this one seen on another Portuguese Frontex vessel. This model is capable of x36 magnification, with low light and infrared cameras.

      The boats that migrants use to make this crossing are very basic, inflatable rubber dinghies several meters long with a single outboard motor. Due to their construction, it is unlikely that these boats would be visible on radar. However, pushbacks don’t just involve a single dinghy. By their definition they must involve at least one other vessel. From images and videos of pushbacks we have reviewed, it is clear that they often involve multiple ships from both the Greek and Turkish coast guards.

      As stated above, ships from both Greece and Turkey will frequently attempt to push the dinghies across the sea border using waves. These vessels manoeuvre in a circular pattern at a relatively high speed close to the dinghy. This manoeuvre is not only dangerous because of the risk of collision, the waves it generates also represent a threat to the overcrowded and often fragile dinghies.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8BdEHtBWp4&feature=emb_logo

      As such, although a dinghy itself may not show up on radar, the signature of a pushback would. Multiple large and small vessels from both TCG and HCG, some of which are carrying out unusual manoeuvres in order to create waves, would be very difficult to miss. Indeed you can even see this kind of event from space.

      There’s also the matter of visual range. The same factors that make a pushback visible on radar will also make it visible to the eye or other visual systems such as surveillance cameras. Even at a range of a few kilometers in calm seas and good conditions, a dinghy would likely be visible, although exact details such as the nature of its passengers might not be. The other aspects of pushbacks which we have already described would also certainly be visible.

      The case of the April 28-29 pushback is a good illustration of surveillance assets passing very close to the results of a pushback.
      April 28

      In an incident previously covered by Bellingcat, a group of 22 migrants who landed on Samos were detained by Greek law enforcement. They were then placed on a life raft without any means of propulsion, and towed into the middle of the Mycale Strait by the Greek coast guard. In response to our request for comment at the time, the Greek government denied these people had ever reached Greek territory, despite witness statements, images, and videos showing this had in fact happened.

      As the life raft was floating in the strait, a private sureveillance plane passed over the area twice at 5,000 feet, once at 02:41 AM and once at 03:18 AM. This plane, G-WKTH, belongs to DEA Aviation, which provides aerial surveillance services to Frontex. In a promotional video from Frontex, it is claimed these feeds are live-streamed back to the Frontex HQ in Warsaw

      The plane is reportedly equipped with an MX-15 camera, which has both low-light and infrared sensors. Considering this plane is specifically employed for aerial surveillance, it would be surprising if it did not identify the life raft full of people and, according to one member of this group, the presence of Greek and later Turkish vessels.

      Indeed, the Frontex executive director’s response to the LIBE committee of the European Parliament indicates this may have been the incident Frontex reported as having seen. In this reply a “Serious Incident Report (‘SIR’) was created based on a sighting of an incident by aerial surveillance where people were transferred on a rubber boat from a vessel and later on rescued by Turkish authorities.
      Active incidents

      In two cases on June 8 and August 15, it seems certain that Frontex was aware of pushbacks as they took place. Indeed, on June 8, it appears that a Frontex vessel participated in a pushback, physically blocking a dinghy from reaching Greek territory.

      We will first address the incident on August 15, where a Frontext vessel was present at the scene of a pushback, before examining the June 8, where a Frontex asset appears to have participated in a pushback.
      August 15

      On the morning of August 15 there were reports of a confrontation between the Greek and Turkish coast guards. As well as multiple photos posted to social media by locals, this was also reported as a pushback by CRG, MRC, Alarm Phone and Aegean Boat Report.

      CRG and MRC also posted videos from people on this dinghy, with CRG’s video showing an engine without a starter cord, claiming it had been taken by the Greek Coast Guard. In the videos, the dinghy is surrounded by vessels from both the Greek and Turkish coast guards. We have previously noted that disabling the motor of dinghies is a tactic that has reportedly been used by the Greek Coast Guard.

      Most of the images of this incident are taken from a distance, making identification of the vessels difficult. However, we were also sent an image of this confrontation that is very clear. In this image we can clearly see the presence of MAI1102, a Romanian border forces vessel which had just arrived in theater.

      The metadata of this image is consistent with the date and time of this incident. Indeed, the ships can be seen arrayed in almost exactly the same manner in a video filmed by the people on the boat.

      Although it is not possible to be certain of exactly how far away MAI1102 is from this pushback, we can see that it is certainly within visual range of the confrontation and the dinghy itself.
      June 8

      On the morning of June 8 a pushback was reported to have taken place, again off the north-east coast of Lesbos. The Turkish coast guard reported it rescued 47 migrants after a pushback by the Greek Coast Guard that day. Footage published by Anadolu Agency appeared to show the Romanian Frontex vessel MAI1103 blocking a dinghy.

      We investigated this incident further, obtaining other videos from the TCG, as well as tracking data of vessels that appeared to be in the vicinity at the time, such as the NATO ship, Berlin. Using these sources we were able to reconstruct what happened.

      After initially trying to cross under the cover of darkness, the dinghy was intercepted and physically blocked from proceeding by MAI1103 early in the morning.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoNJXY3pa_U&feature=emb_logo

      We can see the exact time and a set of coordinates in one of the videos we obtained.

      We plotted the coordinates visible on the screen as they changed. It became clear these were not the location of the vessel with the camera, but rather the location of the dinghy and MAI1103.

      We can visually confirm the general location by comparing a panoramic view that is visible in one of the videos against the appearance of the landscape from the coordinates which appear on the camera feed.

      We can now start to build a picture of what happened that morning.

      We can see that the dinghy was extremely close to MAI1103, and is being physically blocked by the ship. Indeed the two vessels are close enough that it appears that personnel on MAI1103 are communicating with people in the dinghy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qD_I--2LPA&feature=emb_logo

      At one point MAI1103 makes a pass close to the dinghy at enough speed to generate waves, a maneuver that previously only HCG and TCG have been seen making. It is especially dangerous due to the overloaded and unseaworthy nature of the dinghies.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUm1_e2R6A&feature=emb_logo

      Eventually HCG vessels arrive and MAI1103 leaves, resulting in a standoff between the TCG and HCG. This lasted several hours and gradually moved to the north-west, observed by the NATO ship Berlin.

      During this period the dinghy was approached at least twice by a rigid-hulled inflatable boat 060 (RHIB) from the HCG.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WODSvxnmoc&feature=emb_logo

      In what appears to be the final segment of video taken at about 09:30 AM we see the TCG radar screen, which can be exactly matched with the Turkish coast. This radar screen matches perfectly with the location and heading of the Berlin at this time, as we can see by overlaying a plot of the Berlin’s course with the radar screen.

      As well as matching the movement of vessels to AIS data, we can further verify that these videos are from the same incident by examining the passengers in the dinghy. We can see that in the earliest videos, showing the MAI1103 with the dinghy, there is clearly a person wearing a white hood, alongside someone who appears to be wearing a reddish top. The presence of these passengers helps to verify that all these videos are indeed from the same incident on June 8.

      In the final stage of the pushback at 10:30 AM it is possible to see the Portuguese Frontex vessel Nortada within 5 km with both AIS data and on the TCG radar screen. The Nortada had been in that vicinity since at least 09:11 AM that morning. Although it may not have been able to pick up this dinghy on its radar, it would have certainly been within visual range of the larger ships surrounding it. After the pushback, the Nortada continued its patrol off North Lesbos.

      Conclusion

      Over the course of this investigation we collected a huge amount of information on Frontex activities in the Aegean Sea. Most of Frontex’s assets were impossible to track because their transponder information was either not registered, not turned on, or was out of range. As such, we were only able to view a snapshot of Frontex operations.

      Despite this limited view, we still managed to identify multiple instances in which Frontex was either present at pushbacks, or close enough to be able to understand what was taking place. In at least one incident it appears that a Frontex vessel actively participated in a pushback. It is possible that there are other incidents we have not been able to capture.

      In a statement provided in response to this investigation, Frontex stated that it applies “the highest standards of border control to its operations” and that its officers are bound by a code of conduct that looks to prevent refoulement and to uphold human rights.

      The statement continued that Frontex’s executive director had notified the HGC regarding all reported incidents and that Greek authorities confirmed that an internal inquiry had been launched.

      A spokesperson for the Greek Maritime Ministry said the actions of HCG officers were “carried out in full compliance with the country’s international obligations, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.”

      The spokesperson added that thousands of migrants had been rescued throughout the refugee crisis of recent years by the HCG, that allegations of illegality were “tendentious” and that the “operation practices of the Greek authorities have never included such [illegal] actions.”

      https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/10/23/frontex-at-fault-european-border-force-complicit-in-illegal-pushbacks

      #forensic_architecture #architecture_forensique

    • EU Border Agency Frontex Complicit in Greek Refugee Pushback Campaign

      Greek border guards have been forcing large numbers of refugees back to sea in pushback operations that violate international law. #DER_SPIEGEL and its reporting partners have learned that the European Union is also complicit in the highly controversial practice.

      Jouma al-Badi thought he was safe when he first set foot on European soil on April 28. Together with 21 other refugees, he had been taken in a rubber dinghy from Turkey to the Greek island of Samos. The young Syrian planned to apply for political asylum. He documented his arrival in videos. Local residents also remember the refugees.

      Greek security forces captured the migrants. Under international law, it is their duty to give the new arrivals a hearing and field their applications for asylum. Instead, according to al-Badi, the officers dragged them back out to sea and released them on an inflatable rubber raft. Videos obtained by DER SPIEGEL also show him on the raft.

      For an entire night and a morning, Greek border guards kept pushing the men and women away as their raft floated around in circles. The Turkish coast guard filmed the maneuver.

      An aircraft used by the European border protection agency Frontex also passed over the refugees. The crew of the surveillance plane, with the registration identifier "G-WKTH,” were part of a European Union operation in Greece. The plane twice flew over the Strait of Mykali, where al-Badi and the other migrants were located. According to flight data that has been viewed by DER SPIEGEL, the first flight happened at 2:41 a.m. and the second at 3:18 a.m.

      The plane’s crew has a standard MX-15 camera on board with an infrared sensor and a sensor for poor lighting conditions. Even at night, the sensors are capable of detecting small objects on the water. According to a Frontex promotional video, the camera images are streamed live to Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, Poland. But Frontex didn’t send any help.

      The waves struck the Syrian in the face. He eventually ran out of strength and thought he was going to die.

      The Greek government denies it conducted pushbacks of refugees to Turkey, even though DER SPIEGEL and other media have fully documented several of these operations, known as pushbacks. Greek border guards are growing increasingly ruthless. As in the case of al-Badi, they are now pushing even refugees who have reached the Greek isles back to sea in operations that are illegal under international law.

      Frontex officials have publicly claimed that they know nothing about pushbacks by Greek border guards. The agency has 600 employees deployed in Greece as well as ships, drones and aircraft.

      Together with Lighthouse Reports, Bellingcat, "Report Mainz” — a program on ARD, the German public broadcaster — and Japanese broadcaster TV Asahi, DER SPIEGEL spent several months reporting in the Aegean Sea region. The reporters tracked the positions of Frontex units and compared them with position data from pushbacks recorded by NGOs and migrants. They interviewed witnesses, refugees and Frontex staff. They viewed internal documents and dozens of videos and satellite photos.

      Their research proves for the first time that Frontex officials know about the Greek border guards’ illegal practices – and that the agency itself is at times involved in the pushbacks. Breaking the law has become an everyday occurrence at Europe’s borders, and the EU is allowing it to happen.

      Samira Mohammad could already see Lesbos when the men with the masks arrived. The Syrian woman, who does not want to provide her real name, is 45 years old. That morning of August 15, she was sitting in a rubber dinghy with dozens of other people. She recalls how Greek border guards tried in vain to stop the arrivals and how they steered toward the boat repeatedly and pushed it back toward Turkey multiple times. She says the Turkish coast guard held them off. Locals even have a name for the cynical game: "Greek water polo.”

      Mohammad claims the Greek officials took their gasoline and destroyed the engine. And that masked Greek border guards then boarded the dinghy. Several refugees claim that they forced the migrants to tie the shaky rubber dinghy to a speedboat at gunpoint. The border guards then towed the boat toward Turkey. Videos corroborate the statements made by the refugees, and the destroyed engine is clearly visible.

      Mohammad said she was scared to death during those moments. Her entire family had been onboard, including her pregnant daughter-in-law, who was later hospitalized with severe bleeding.

      The maneuver off the coast of Lesbos lasted hours, and the Turkish Navy didn’t rescue the refugees until noon.

      A Romanian Frontex boat was also on site that morning. The MAI 1102 was located only a few hundred meters away from the refugee boat. The boat can be clearly identified in a photo. A German navy ship on a NATO mission that observed the incident reported it to the German government. It also stated that Frontex people had been present. This is documented in an internal paper that has been obtained by DER SPIEGEL. Nevertheless, this pushback has never been revealed publicly before now.

      On June 8, Frontex officials went one step further, with the MAI 1103, a ship also flying the Romanian flag. It directly blocked a refugee boat. The incident can be seen in several videos recorded by the Turkish coast guard and verified by DER SPIEGEL. It shows officials standing on the deck, where they are obviously communicating with the refugees floating in the water in front of them.

      Later, the MAI 1103 passes the refugees traveling at high speed, with waves beating against the boat. The Romanian officials then withdrew and the Greek coast guard took over the operation.

      "These pushbacks violate the ban on collective expulsions and international maritime law,” says Dana Schmalz, an expert on international law at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg. She notes that if Frontex officials stopped a completely overcrowded inflatable boat, they would be required to rescue the people immediately. "If they don’t do that and even make waves instead, only to drive away and let the Greeks do the dirty work, then they are still involved in the illegal pushback,” she says.

      Reporting by DER SPIEGEL and its partners found that a Frontex surveillance plane or Portuguese or Romanian Frontex ships were near at least six pushbacks in the area since April. The number of undetected cases could actually be much higher.

      The vast majority of Frontex vessels patrol the Aegean Sea with their AIS transponders switched off or untraceable in order to prevent giving away their positions. Their presence can only be verified with difficulty through videos and photos.

      When contacted for comment by DER SPIEGEL, Frontex did not deny the individual incidents, instead stating that the officials protected the fundamental rights of migrants and respected their right to non-refoulement. It further stated that the incidents that had been reported were forwarded to the Greek coast guard, which opened an investigation into the matter. The Greek government gave a blanket denial to the allegations, saying that it complies with the law and does not carry out illegal deportations.

      Under Frontex’s statutes, police officers are required to file so-called Serious Incident Reports to document violations of the law. But people familiar with the situation say that fewer and fewer of these reports are getting filed. The sources said the Frontex border guards, who are sent to Greece from all over Europe, frown upon such reports because they cause trouble for the host country.

      https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-border-agency-frontex-complicit-in-greek-refugee-pushback-campaign-a-4b6c

      –---

      en allemand :
      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-frontex-in-griechenland-in-illegale-pushbacks-verwickelt-a-0000

    • Bruxelles veut des explications de Frontex, accusée de procéder à des refoulements illégaux de migrants

      La #Commission_européenne a sollicité une réunion extraordinaire urgente du conseil d’administration de Frontex, l’agence européenne pour la protection des frontières, mise en cause pour des refoulements illégaux de migrants en mer Égée. Un article d’Euroefe.

      « Après s’être coordonnés avec la présidente de la Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, mes services ont demandé, au nom de la Commission, la convocation d’une réunion extraordinaire du conseil d’administration de Frontex le 10 novembre pour discuter des incidents présumés de refoulement en Grèce et de la protection des droits fondamentaux », a écrit Ylva Johansson, la commissaire chargée des migrations, dans un tweet.

      D’après des enquêtes menées par différents médias, Frontex aurait procédé à des refoulements illégaux de migrants en mer Égée, à la frontière entre la Turquie et la Grèce. Et ce à au moins six reprises.

      L’hebdomadaire allemand Der Spiegel a révélé le 23 octobre qu’il avait enquêté sur ces incidents en collaboration avec les médias numériques néerlandais Lighthouse Reports et britannique Bellingcat, ainsi qu’avec deux chaînes de télévision, l’Allemande ARD et la Japonaise Asahi.

      Ces médias disposent de films montrant comment, depuis le mois d’avril, des agents de Frontex ont procédé à ce que l’on appelle des « pushbacks » (refoulements) de migrants pour les empêcher d’atteindre le sol européen, une pratique illégale.

      Une vidéo montre comment un bateau de l’agence européenne bloque le passage d’une embarcation occupée par des migrants, avant de les dépasser à grande vitesse, provoquant ainsi de grosses vagues. Par la suite, les garde-côtes grecs obligent la barque à faire demi-tour vers la Turquie.

      De son côté, Frontex a nié les accusations et assuré au Spiegel que ses agents protégeaient les droits fondamentaux des migrants et respectaient le droit au non-refoulement.

      Le gouvernement grec a également nié catégoriquement ces accusations.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/bruxelles-veut-des-explications-de-frontex-accusee-de-proceder-a-des-refoulements-illegaux-de-migrants/?_ga=2.223583131.1633915392.1603989521-379746837.1590938192

    • Greek coast guard performed huge pushback involving 197 people and 7 life rafts!

      A boat carrying 197 people tried to cross from Turkey to Italy on Tuesday, but got in to bad weather and sat course towards Crete. Close to the south shore of Crete they had engine problems and the Greek Coast Guard was alerted 09.00.
      The coast guard divided the people on two coast guard vessels, 121 men and boys on one vessel and 76 people, families on the other. Reports from the refugees clearly states that some of them where abuse while onboard the HCG vessel, footage and video testimony has been provided. Most of their phones was confiscated by the Greek coast guard, but a few managed to hide their phones, and was able to send out distress messages.
      The first group containing the 121 males was forced in to 3 life rafts before first light on Wednesday the 21th just north of Rhodes, and found and picked up by Turkish coast guard 08.50 south of Marmaris.
      The second group with the families, 76 people, was put in 4 life rafts around noon north west of Simi, drifting for hours and not picked up by Turkish coast guard before 17.30 south west of Datça.
      This shows that the Greek coast guard is determined to prevent anyone to reach Greek soil, no matter the consequences or potential harm they may inflict on innocent people fleeing war and persecution.
      This is by far the largest pushback Aegean Boat Report has been able to document, but I guess nothing is a surprise anymore. No measures have been taken by the EU to try to stop this illegal practice by the Greek government, even do they have received overwhelming amounts of evidence.

      https://www.facebook.com/AegeanBoatReport/posts/951612422028529

    • Έστειλαν πίσω 200 πρόσφυγες γιατί ήταν… τζιχαντιστές

      Τεκμηριωμένη καταγγελία για τη μεγαλύτερη ώς τώρα καταγεγραμμένη επαναπροώθηση προσφύγων από το Λιμενικό προς την Τουρκία με μεγάλη και κρυφή επιχείρηση του Λιμενικού εν μέσω σφοδρής κακοκαιρίας νότια της Κρήτης ● Έντεχνη προσπάθεια οι 200 άνθρωποι, μεταξύ αυτών και γυναικόπαιδα, να εμφανιστούν ως… ισλαμιστές τρομοκράτες.

      Ακόμα μια καταγγελία για βίαιες επαναπροωθήσεις προσφύγων από το Λιμενικό έρχεται στο φως τις τελευταίες ημέρες, την ίδια στιγμή που η κυβέρνηση πανηγυρίζει για τη μείωση των προσφυγικών ροών προς τα νησιά, χωρίς όμως να εξηγεί πώς έχει επιτευχθεί η μείωση αυτή.

      Η υπόθεση αφορά πλοιάριο με περίπου 200 ανθρώπους που έφτασαν στα ανοιχτά της Κρήτης, προερχόμενοι από Τουρκία και με τελικό προορισμό την Ιταλία. Στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση υπάρχει μια περίεργη αλληλουχία γεγονότων και « ειδήσεων » τόσο στα κρητικά όσο και τα κεντρικά ΜΜΕ. Το πρωί της Τρίτης 20 Οκτωβρίου σε όλα τα ηλεκτρονικά ΜΜΕ της Κρήτης μεταδίδεται η είδηση για « κινητοποίηση του Λιμενικού » για σκάφος με 200 μετανάστες στη θαλάσσια περιοχή νότια της νήσου Χρυσής (Γαϊδουρονήσι), στην Ιεράπετρα. Το προηγούμενο βράδυ η Κρήτη είχε χτυπηθεί σφοδρά από την κακοκαιρία και το πρωί τα βλέμματα όλων ήταν στις εκτεταμένες καταστροφές που προκάλεσε το χαλάζι σε καλλιέργειες και υποδομές, κυρίως στην ανατολική πλευρά του νησιού. Την ίδια κακοκαιρία προφανώς αντιμετώπισαν και οι 200 επιβαίνοντες στο σκάφος, μεταξύ των οποίων υπήρχαν γυναίκες και παιδιά.

      Στις πρώτες αναφορές και σε ερωτήσεις δημοσιογράφων προς το Λιμεναρχείο Ιεράπετρας γινόταν λόγος για « αδυναμία του Λιμενικού να εντοπίσει το πλοιάριο », ωστόσο δινόταν η πληροφορία πως τα σκάφη θα έμεναν στα ανοιχτά λόγω της κακοκαιρίας και για την περίπτωση που χρειαστεί, να παράσχουν βοήθεια αν εντοπίσουν τους πρόσφυγες. Λίγες ώρες αργότερα η είδηση εξαφανίστηκε από τα ΜΜΕ και δημιουργήθηκε η εντύπωση πως τα σκάφη του Λιμενικού δεν βρήκαν ποτέ το πλοιάριο με τους πρόσφυγες.
      Τους βρήκαν ;

      Ωστόσο τα πράγματα φαίνεται πως έγιναν διαφορετικά. Τέσσερις μέρες μετά, η οργάνωση Aegean Boat Report, η οποία και στο παρελθόν έχει αποκαλύψει παράνομες επιχειρήσεις επαναπροώθησης λέμβων με μετανάστες προς την Τουρκία από τις ελληνικές αρχές και τη Frontex, καταγγέλλει πως το Λιμενικό όχι μόνο βρήκε τους πρόσφυγες στα ανοιχτά της Κρήτης αλλά προχώρησε και με συνοπτικές διαδικασίες στην επαναπροώθησή τους στην Τουρκία. Η οργάνωση καταγγέλλει πως η ελληνική Ακτοφυλακή εντόπισε τους πρόσφυγες στις 9 το πρωί της Τρίτης (όπως δηλαδή μετέδιδαν αρχικά και τα κρητικά ΜΜΕ). Στη συνέχεια, πάντα σύμφωνα με την καταγγελία, οι άνδρες του Λιμενικού επιβίβασαν τους 197 πρόσφυγες σε δύο επιχειρησιακά σκάφη χωρίζοντάς τους σε δύο ομάδες. Στην πρώτη ομάδα μπήκαν 121 άνδρες και αγόρια, ενώ στη δεύτερη μπήκαν οικογένειες με γυναίκες και παιδιά, συνολικά 76 άτομα. Και οι δύο ομάδες, πάντα σύμφωνα με την καταγγελία, μεταφέρθηκαν στη θαλάσσια περιοχή βόρεια της Ρόδου, όπου και εξαναγκάστηκαν με τη βία να επιβιβαστούν σε συνολικά επτά θαλάσσιες σωστικές σχεδίες αφού προηγουμένως τους είχαν αφαιρεθεί όλα τα κινητά τηλέφωνα. Και οι επτά σχεδίες « σπρώχτηκαν » προς τις ακτές της Τουρκίας, εν μέσω κακοκαιρίας και κατά παράβαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και του δίκαιου της θάλασσας.

      Στιγμιότυπα από την επαναπροώθηση των προσφύγων (Φωτογραφίες από την οργάνωση Aegean Boat Report).


      Οι τρεις πρώτες σχεδίες, με 121 άτομα, εξωθήθηκαν τα ξημερώματα της Τετάρτης 21/10 προς την περιοχή της Μαρμαρίδας, όπου και εντοπίστηκαν από το τουρκικό Λιμενικό που τους περισυνέλεξε. Το δεύτερο γκρουπ, όπου βρίσκονταν οι γυναίκες και τα παιδιά, εξαναγκάστηκε να επιβιβαστεί σε τέσσερις σωστικές σχεδίες και επαναπροωθήθηκε προς την Τουρκία από τη θαλάσσια περιοχή δυτικά της Σύμης, το μεσημέρι της Τετάρτης. Τους περισυνέλεξε το τουρκικό Λιμενικό το απόγευμα της ίδιας μέρας στην περιοχή νοτιοδυτικά της πόλης Ντάκτα. Οπως αναφέρουν μάλιστα κάποιοι από τους επιβαίνοντες, χτυπήθηκαν από τους Ελληνες λιμενικούς, ενώ υπάρχει και σχετικό φωτογραφικό υλικό που τραβήχτηκε μετά την περισυλλογή τους από τις τουρκικές αρχές. Σε μία από τις φωτογραφίες φαίνεται ένας άνθρωπος με μώλωπες στην κοιλιά και με γύψο σε σημεία και των δύο χεριών του.


      Πρωτοσέλιδο

      Την ίδια μέρα, πάντως, που έγινε η καταγγελία από την Aegean Boat Report (το Σάββατο) η εφημερίδα « ΤΑ ΝΕΑ » κυκλοφορούσε με τίτλο « Προετοιμαστείτε για Τζιχαντιστές », αναφερόμενη στο μήνυμα που, σύμφωνα με πληροφορίες της εφημερίδας, έστειλε σε Ελλάδα και Κύπρο ο Αιγύπτιος πρόεδρος Αλ Σίσι κατά την τριμερή συνάντηση που πραγματοποιήθηκε στη Λευκωσία. Το μήνυμα υποτίθεται πως αφορούσε τις πληροφορίες που έχει η Αίγυπτος για τις κινήσεις του Ερντογάν και το πώς χρησιμοποιεί τον ισλαμιστικό παράγοντα. Σε κάποια κρητικά ΜΜΕ οι δύο υποθέσεις δεν άργησαν να συνδεθούν με αναφορές για το… περίεργο σκάφος στο οποίο, σύμφωνα με τα δημοσιεύματα, επέβαιναν « άτομα εμφανιζόμενα ως μετανάστες » και το οποίο, σύμφωνα με τις διοχετευμένες πληροφορίες, έχει κινητοποιήσει όχι μόνο το Λιμενικό αλλά και τον Στρατό, την ΕΥΠ ακόμα και ξένες μυστικές υπηρεσίες !

      Όπως αποκαλύπτεται, πάντως, οι επικίνδυνοι « τζιχαντιστές », τόσο οι άνδρες όσο και τα γυναικόπαιδα, είχαν ήδη από την Τετάρτη επαναπροωθηθεί παράνομα στην Τουρκία. Η Οργάνωση Aegean Boat Report αναφέρει πως αυτή είναι η μεγαλύτερη περίπτωση « pushback » που καταφέρνει να καταγράψει και τονίζει πως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ενωση δεν έχει επιβάλει ακόμα καμία κύρωση στην Ελλάδα για τις παράνομες επαναπροωθήσεις, παρά τα ακλόνητα στοιχεία που έχουν τεθεί στη διάθεση των ευρωπαϊκών αρχών.

      https://www.efsyn.gr/efkriti/koinonia/265835_esteilan-piso-200-prosfyges-giati-itan-tzihantistes

    • Greece’s coast guard accused of mass migrant pushbacks

      An NGO, the #Aegean_Boat_Report (ABR), has accused the Greek coast guard of pushing back 197 migrants at sea last week.

      Greek coast guards have been accused by the NGO Aegean Boat Report (ABR) of performing illegal pushbacks involving 197 people and seven life rafts off the coast of the island of Crete in the Southern Aegean.

      A boat carrying 197 people was on its way trying to cross from Turkey to Italy on October 20 but ran into bad weather and changed course towards Crete, the NGO said.

      Close to the south shore of Crete, the vessel reported engine problems and, according to the Norwegian organization, the Greek coast guard was alerted at 9 am.

      ’’The Greek coast guard divided the people into two groups onto two coast guard vessels, 121 men and boys on one vessel, and 76 people, mostly families, on the other.

      Abuse on board

      Reports from the refugees clearly state that some of them were abused while onboard the Hellenic coast guard vessel, with footage and video testimony being provided,’’ said ABR via a media statement.

      According to ABR, the first group with the 121 men and boys were forced into three life rafts in the early hours of Wednesday, October 21 just north of Rhodes, before being found and picked up by the Turkish coast guard at 8:50 am south of Marmaris.

      The second group of 76 people, made up of families, were put into four life rafts at around noon north-west of the islands of Simi, drifting for hours and not picked up by Turkish coast guards before 5:30 pm south-west of Data.

      ’Largest pushback’ ABR has documented

      ’’This shows that the Greek coast guard is determined to prevent anyone from reaching Greek soil, no matter the consequences or potential harm they may inflict on innocent people fleeing war and persecution’’, added ABR.

      ’’This is by far the largest pushback Aegean Boat Report has been able to document, but I guess nothing is a surprise anymore. No measures have been taken by the EU to try to stop this illegal practice by the Greek government, even if they have received overwhelming amounts of evidence.’’

      29 NGOs and humanitarian groups sent an open letter to Parliament Last week’s incidents were reported after an appeal was launched by several prominent NGOs and humanitarian groups earlier this month on the topic of illegal pushbacks.

      A total of 29 organizations sent an open letter to Parliament urging it to investigate reports of illegal pushbacks at the country’s land and sea borders with neighboring Turkey.

      The letter called on the Greek Parliament to ’’immediately conduct an effective, transparent and impartial investigation into allegations that personnel from the Coast Guard, the Greek Police and the Greek Army, sometimes in close cooperation with masked men in uniform, have engaged in such actions, which are not only illegal but also endanger the lives and safety of displaced people."

      Tensions on migration in Greece

      Tensions on the migrant issue in Greece continue to run high following September’s fires which destroyed the controversial Moria open camp on Lesbos, and widespread lockdowns at refugee camps across the country following outbreaks of coronavirus cases.

      The reports of pushbacks taking place have prompted action from humanitarian rights groups, with the joint-appeal calling for disciplinary and criminal sanctions, as deemed appropriate, “on anyone in uniform who are found to have participated in such illegal activities, but also for their superiors who are responsible for the administration of these bodies.”

      “The investigation should establish the identity and relationship of the masked men and other unidentified officers to law enforcement, and take steps to hold them to account.”

      State pushes ahead with migrant camps

      Meanwhile, in related developments, the government is pressing ahead with plans to create more secure and strictly controlled ’’closed’’ migrant reception centers on the Aegean islands.

      With the COVID-19 pandemic creating further challenges and complications for the operation of existing camps, most of which are under lockdown due to positive cases of the virus, the state is aiming to build new ’’permanent’’ structures, starting with one on Lesbos.

      The situation on Lesbos is the primary concern right now, as the current temporary facility which was hastily set up in the Kara Tepe area on the coast after Moria was burned down, has already flooded twice with the first rainfalls of the season.

      Lesbos Mayor Stratis Kytelis met with government officials in Athens last week to discuss the location of a new permanent facility on the island, although the plans are being met with resistance from local community groups.Greece’s health authorities, meanwhile, are also conducting regular COVID-19 tests at migrant camps on the Aegean islands to ensure that any outbreak is quickly contained.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/28139/greece-s-coast-guard-accused-of-mass-migrant-pushbacks

    • Frontex sous pression après des accusations de refoulement de migrants aux portes de la Grèce

      C’est une première : mardi 10 novembre, le conseil d’administration de l’Agence européenne des garde-frontières et de garde-côtes Frontex devra examiner des accusations de refoulements illégaux (ou « pushbacks ») de migrants en mer Egée. Elles ont été portées contre Frontex par un groupe de médias. En octobre, le site d’investigation Bellingcat et le magazine Der Spiegel notamment, avaient rapporté, images et témoignages à l’appui, six épisodes au cours desquels des embarcations avaient été bloquées, contrairement aux règles internationales sur le non-refoulement.

      Celles-ci stipulent que des personnes ne peuvent être renvoyées vers un pays, avant un examen de leur situation, si leur existence est en danger en raison de leur race, leur religion, leur nationalité ou leur appartenance à un groupe social ou politique.

      Il aura apparemment fallu une intervention ferme de la Commission européenne pour que la direction de Frontex, devenue le premier corps en uniforme et la plus importante agence de l’Union avec un budget de quelque 500 millions d’euros, accepte de convoquer un conseil extraordinaire. Dans un premier temps, elle s’était contentée d’affirmer, le 24 octobre, qu’elle respectait la loi internationale et était en contact avec la Grèce, qui devait ouvrir « une enquête interne ».
      Enquête interne

      « Si l’agence est impliquée dans de telles actions, c’est totalement inacceptable », déclarait pour sa part la commissaire à la migration, Ylva Johansson, le 26 octobre. Le lendemain, Frontex promettait une enquête interne et, même si elle n’exerce pas une tutelle directe sur l’agence, la Commission obtenait la convocation d’une réunion. A charge pour Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur français, de fournir des explications détaillées.

      « La Grèce ne participe pas à des refoulements, a affirmé de son côté le ministre grec des migrations, Notis Mitarachi. Nous gardons nos frontières en respectant le droit international et nous continuons à sauver des centaines de migrants tous les jours en Méditerranée », a-t-il précisé.

      Athènes fait face depuis des mois à de nombreuses accusations de refoulement en mer Egée et à la frontière terrestre avec la Turquie, dans l’Evros. Le 14 août déjà, le New York Times avait affirmé que les gardes-côtes grecs avaient abandonné en « pleine mer » des canots remplis de migrants. Interviewé par CNN, le premier ministre conservateur Kyriakos Mitsotakis avait démenti : « Cela n’est jamais arrivé. Nous sommes les victimes d’une vaste campagne de désinformation », suggérant que les journalistes avaient interrogé principalement des sources turques voulant décrédibiliser les autorités grecques.

      Depuis l’envoi par la Turquie de milliers de réfugiés à la frontière terrestre de l’Evros, en mars, Athènes a toujours assuré vouloir « protéger ses frontières » qui sont aussi celles de l’Europe et faire face à « une menace ». Le gouvernement a renforcé le contrôle des frontières en embauchant notamment du personnel supplémentaire. Entre avril et juillet, les arrivées à Lesbos ont diminué de 85 % par rapport à l’année dernière, selon le ministère des migrations.
      Des « abus sont trop nombreux pour être ignorés »

      Pour de nombreuses ONG présentes sur le terrain, cette diminution spectaculaire est le résultat de « pushbacks ». Selon Human Rights Watch, « les preuves et les rapports décrivant les abus sont trop nombreux pour être ignorés ». L’organisation dit avoir interrogé des victimes et des témoins qui décrivent comment les garde-côtes grecs, la police, et des hommes masqués et vêtus d’habits sombres ont effectué depuis les îles de Rhodes, de Samos et Simi, des refoulements illégaux de personnes sur de petits canots gonflables.

      A la fin août, le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) de l’ONU se disait « inquiet de l’augmentation des publications depuis mars 2020 attestant de refoulements illégaux ». « Le HCR a reçu des rapports et des témoignages de personnes abandonnées en pleine mer pendant un long moment, souvent sur des rafiots surpeuplés », précisait le communiqué.

      L’Observatoire grec des accords d’Helsinki a déjà déposé une plainte auprès de la Cour suprême grecque pour le refoulement de plus de 1 300 personnes en s’appuyant sur les témoignages recueillis par plusieurs ONG. En septembre, 29 organisations de défense des droits de l’homme ont par ailleurs adressé une lettre au premier ministre et au parlement grecs pour réclamer une enquête. Leur courrier est encore sans réponse alors que 35 membres d’ONG font, eux, l’objet d’une investigation : ils sont suspectés d’avoir renseigné des migrants sur les positions des gardes-côtes ainsi que des passeurs sur des lieux d’accostage. Ces humanitaires travaillent pour des organisations qui ont dénoncé avec le plus de véhémence les refoulements vers la Turquie par les gardes-côtes grecs.

      Frontex, qui a engagé en Grèce quelque six cents agents dotés de divers moyens de surveillance, a déjà fait l’objet d’autres accusations mais affirme à chaque fois respecter un code de conduite qui prohibe strictement les refoulements. La communication très cadenassée de l’agence ne détaille toutefois pas comment les contrôles sont vraiment exercés. L’action du service interne chargé de contrôler le respect des droits fondamentaux reste également nébuleuse. Une situation déplorée par le HCR, membre du forum consultatif chargé de conseiller l’agence européenne dans son action.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2020/11/05/frontex-sous-pression-apres-des-accusations-de-refoulement-de-migrants-aux-p

    • EU: Probe Frontex Complicity in Border Abuses. Ensure Independent and Effective Investigation

      The top governing body of the European Union Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should urgently establish an independent inquiry into allegations of its involvement in unlawful operations to stop migrants from reaching the European Union (EU), Human Rights Watch said today.

      The agency’s board will hold an extraordinary meeting on November 10, 2020. Frontex should also address serious and persistent violations by border and law enforcement officers of the countries where it operates.

      “The fact that Frontex may have become complicit in abuses at Greece’s borders is extremely serious,” said Eva Cossé, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Management Board of Frontex should quickly open an inquiry into Frontex involvement in – or actions to disregard or cover up – abuses against people seeking protection from conflicts and persecution.”

      On October 23, a group of media outlets published a detailed investigative report alleging Frontex involvement in pushback operations at the Greek-Turkish maritime border, in the Aegean Sea. The reports said that asylum seekers and migrants were prevented from reaching EU soil or were forced out of EU waters. Such pushbacks violate international law, Human Rights Watch said.

      EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson said on October 28 that she had asked, in coordination with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, “to convene an urgent extraordinary Frontex Management Board meeting on 10 November, to discuss alleged push-back incidents in Greece and fundamental rights protection.”

      Frontex’s mandate obliges officers and the officers of member states deployed to respect fundamental rights, but the agency has been under heavy criticism for the shortcomings of its internal monitoring and accountability mechanisms. On October 27, Frontex announced an internal inquiry into the incidents reported by the media.

      In recent years, nongovernmental groups and media outlets have consistently reported the unlawful return, including through pushbacks, of groups and individuals from Greece to Turkey, by Greek law enforcement officers or unidentified masked men who appear to be working in tandem with border enforcement officials.

      Since Frontex deployed officers along the full length of the Turkey-Greece land border in March, Human Rights Watch has documented that Greek law enforcement officers routinely summarily returned asylum seekers and migrants through the land border with Turkey. Human Rights Watch found that officers in some cases used violence and often confiscated and destroyed migrants’ belongings.

      Greek authorities have said that police officers wearing dark blue uniforms work at police stations. Border patrol police officers wear military camouflage uniforms. Frontex guards wear their national uniforms, with a blue armband with the EU flag.

      In July, Human Rights Watch documented collective expulsions, through the Evros river land border, of asylum seekers rounded up from deep inside Greece.

      In a June 19 response to questions posed by Human Rights Watch, Frontex wrote that no abuses against migrants by Greek border guards or by police or border guards of other EU member states deployed under Frontex had been reported to Frontex. It said that Frontex does not have the authority to investigate allegations of abuse by EU member states’ police or border guards deployed in Greece. It said that such investigations are conducted by the competent national authorities.

      In June, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said it was deeply concerned about persistent reports of pushbacks and collective expulsions of migrants, in some cases violent, at Greece’s border with Turkey. In August, the UN Refugee Agency flagged concerns over the increasing number of credible reports of pushbacks at Greece’s land and sea borders.

      In May 2019, Frontex told Human Rights Watch that it had not detected any human rights violations or pushbacks during its operational presence at Croatia’s border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite consistent evidence of brutal pushbacks, reports from international and regional organizations, and the confirmation by Croatian officials that such abuses were taking place.

      Under the Frontex mandate, its executive director has the authority to, and should, withdraw financing, and suspend or terminate its activities if there are serious violations of fundamental rights related to its activities. The executive director is also expected to take into account information provided by relevant international organizations.

      On July 6, during a debate at the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on fundamental rights at the Greek border, Johansson said that pushbacks by Greek border guards should be investigated. In its new Pact on Migration and Asylum, presented on September 23, the European Commission recommended to member states to set up an independent monitoring mechanism, amid increased allegations of abuse at the EU’s external borders.

      Members of the Frontex Management Board should set up an independent, prompt, effective, transparent, and impartial investigation into allegations that officers deployed by Frontex were involved in unlawful operations of pushbacks of asylum seekers. Any officer found to have engaged in such illegal acts, as well as their commanding officers and officials who have command responsibility over such forces, should be subject to disciplinary and criminal sanctions, as applicable.

      The investigation should also identify whether Frontex failed to report or otherwise address allegations of serious fundamental rights violations committed by law enforcement or border officers of the member state hosting operations.

      “An EU agency with a clear mandate to act in compliance with fundamental rights has the responsibility to do everything possible to prevent such severe violations,” Cossé said. “If Frontex not only turned a blind eye to abuses committed under its sight, or worse, directly took part in them, it becomes every EU member state’s responsibility.”

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/09/eu-probe-frontex-complicity-border-abuses

    • Frontex calls for committee to consider questions related to sea surveillance

      Today, Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri has called for the creation of an evaluation committee to consider legal questions related to the Agency’s surveillance of external sea borders and accommodating the concerns raised by Member States about “hybrid threats” affecting their national security at external borders where the European Border and Coast Guard Agency will deploy its standing corps.

      Under the Frontex proposal, the committee would be coordinated by the European Commission with the participation of Member States on a volunteer basis. It would address various questions, in particular those related to Regulation 2014/656 in the light of the current operational situation.

      Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri also expressed the Agency’s continued commitment to highest standards of protection of fundamental rights.

      “Any allegation of misconduct or infringement of international treaties or fundamental rights in the framework of joint operations coordinated by Frontex is treated with grave concern and carefully investigated,” said Fabrice Leggeri.

      “I am committed to reinforce the office of the Fundamental Rights Officer and to gradually increase its budget,” he added.

      Leggeri also proposed that the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer to play a bigger role in raising awareness of the operational officers on the legal requirements that they need to apply on everyday basis in the field.

      “This could apply not only to the Frontex-deployed staff, but also to the staff of the International Coordination Centres, who often play an essential part in deciding to react to complicated events,” Leggeri said.

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news-release/frontex-calls-for-committee-to-consider-questions-related-to-sea-surv

    • #Ombudsman opens inquiry to assess European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) ‘#Complaints_Mechanism’

      European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has opened an inquiry to look into how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with alleged breaches of fundamental rights. In particular, the investigation will assess the effectiveness and transparency of Frontex’s Complaints Mechanism for those who believe their rights have been violated in the context of Frontex border operations, as well as the role and independence of Frontex’s ‘Fundamental Rights Officer’.

      In 2013, as part of a previous inquiry, the Ombudsman recommended that Frontex set up an individual complaints mechanism, and that its Fundamental Rights Officer be in charge of the mechanism. Since then, such a mechanism was put in place and further developed, with a view to providing safeguards for fundamental rights in the context of Frontex’s expanding mandate, as well as ensuring increased accountability and redress for those impacted by its actions.

      This inquiry focuses on whether the Complaints Mechanism and the Fundamental Rights Officer are truly empowered to deal with the issues faced by migrants and asylum seekers who feel their rights have been violated under Frontex operations.

      In opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman has sent a set of detailed questions to Frontex on the Complaints Mechanism and the Fundamental Rights Officer. She has also informed members of the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), with a view to their possible participation in the inquiry, as part of the ENO’s parallel work. This is important, given the role of national authorities in Frontex operations, and the fact that some national ombudsmen are responsible for following up on complaints related to this.

      Among other things, the questions set out by the Ombudsman look at: how and when Frontex will be updating the mechanism to reflect its expanded mandate; what happens to complainants who are faced with forced return while their complaint is still being processed; what appeal possibilities are open to complainants; how Frontex monitors complaints against national authorities; how those who have been affected by Frontex operations but are in non-EU countries can complain about alleged breaches of fundamental rights, including the issue of language; and the role of the Fundamental Rights Officer in this process.

      https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/134739

    • Frontex: Cover-Up and Diversion. Outcomes of and Responses to the Frontex Management Board meeting on 10th November

      An extraordinary meeting took place on Tuesday 10th November, between the EU Commission and Frontex, regarding alleged Frontex involvement in illegal pushbacks in Greece.

      Why did the meeting take place?

      This meeting was called due to an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting the involvement or complicity of Frontex in pushbacks. Reports by Spiegel, Report Mainz, Bellingcat and other international media, including Josoor and other members of the BVMN, had led to this meeting taking place. These investigations show Frontex involvement in at least six pushbacks through, for example, blocking boats and making waves to deter boats from getting any closer to the shore. According to Frontex insiders, mission reports were routinely altered into something more positive, excluding explicit mentions of pushbacks, before being sent to Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, Poland.

      We, at the Border Violence Monitoring Network, took advantage of the opportunity presented by the meeting on 10th November by sending a letter of concern to the Executive Director of Frontex and the FRO. This letter included evidence from testimonies, collected by BVMN partners, including Josoor, from people-on-the-move who claim that Frontex personnel were involved or complicit in pushbacks operations at the borders between Greek and Turkey, and Albania and Greece. The letter questioned Frontex’s knowledge and understanding of these allegations, and demanded an investigation into these claims. The letter was also addressed to the EU commissioner of Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, and her officer and we hoped this was presented as evidence at the management board meeting on 10th November

      What were the outcomes?

      Johansson remarked on twitter after the meeting:

      “Today’s @Frontex extraordinary management board was a good start to what I want to be a transparent process. The @EU_Commission has asked the Frontex Executive Director to reply to Qs ahead of the next scheduled board meeting (end November).”

      Leggeri, the Executive Director of Frontex, has been ordered by the EU Commission to answer questions concerning these accusations by the end of November. Frontex is yet to comment in detail on the allegations and reported incidents have been forwarded to the Greek coastguard, where also the Greek authorities have refused to comment and denied involvement. Both Frontex and the Greek authorities have launched internal investigations in response to these allegations. Unsurprisingly, after just 48 hours of their investigations, Frontex announced that they were innocent.

      The meeting also included a discussion on whether Frontex should withdraw from missions, such as the one in the Aegean Sea in the event of serious and persistent human rights violations. Such a directive can be found already in Frontex’s regulations. Officials of a few member states vetoed the application of this rule, and Greek representatives in particular were concerned that this could expose the Greek government.

      In the end, a compromise was met. A Frontex statement outlined that a ‘Commission of Inquiry’ will now be made to deal with legal questions concerning operations at sea borders. This will be coordinated by the EU Commission.

      “Any allegation of misconduct or violation of international agreements or fundamental rights within joint operations coordinated by Frontex will be treated with grave concern and investigated closely,” Leggeri said.

      Also, Frontex seeks to strengthen the role of the Fundamental Rights Officer, but experts agree that the internal mechanisms at Frontex are insufficient and therefore see this move as insufficient. As of yesterday, Frontex is advertising for the vacancy of the FRO.

      Members of EU Parliament reactions:

      Tineke Strik (from Netherlands, Green) commented, according to Spiegel, “The announcement did not mention the human rights violations at the border. A committee does not replace a truly independent and transparent investigation. Strik stated “Citizens need to know what has happened and how human rights violations are to be prevented in the future”

      Dietmar Köster (from Germany, SPD) stated, quoted from Tagesschau, "It is a unique cover-up attempt to divert attention from one’s own responsibility and failure to observe human rights”. Köster further stated that Leggeri’s statements showed the arrogance and ignorance of Frontex. “Basic and human rights apply to all. The European Border Management Agency is not exempt from their observance, it is not above the law.”

      An successful outcome: an independent inquiry:

      On the morning of Thursday 12th November, the European Ombudsman tweeted that they would open an inquiry into Frontex, assessing the effectiveness and transparency of their ‘Complaints Mechanism’ and the role and independence of the ‘Fundamental Rights Officer’ (FRO). The latter is especially important as the current ad interim FRO, Annegret Kohler, appointed in 2018, and re-appointed in September 2020, was selected from the Executive Director’s former cabinet, where she was an advisor to the Executive Director. This raises questions about independence and objectivity of the FRO and the FRO’s team to carry out their duties and avoid potential conflicts of interest. Josoor welcomes this investigation.

      https://www.josoor.net/post/frontex-cover-up-and-diversion

    • EU erhöht Druck auf Frontex-Chef

      Die EU-Grenzschutzagentur gerät durch Recherchen des ARD-Magazins Report Mainz und weiterer Medien in Bedrängnis. Heute musste die Frontex-Führung der EU-Kommission zum Thema illegale Pushbacks Rede und Antwort stehen.

      Die Europäische Kommission erwartet Antworten vom Frontex-Chef. Bis Ende November muss sich Fabrice Leggeri zur Verwicklung seiner Grenzschutzagentur in illegale Pushbacks von Flüchtlingen äußern. Das ist das Ergebnis einer Dringlichkeitssitzung des Frontex Management Boards. Das Treffen sei ein guter Anfang gewesen, sie wolle den Prozess transparent gestalten, twitterte die zuständige EU-Kommissarin Ylva Johansson. Leggeri solle bis zur nächsten Zusammenkunft des Management Boards auf die Fragen der Kommission antworten.
      Recherchen bringen Frontex in Bedrängnis

      Johansson hatte das Treffen einberufen, um über eine gemeinsame Recherche des ARD-Magazins Report Mainz, des „Spiegel“ und der Medienorganisationen Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports und tv Asahi zu diskutieren. Die Medien hatten aufgedeckt, dass Frontex-Einheiten in der Ägäis in illegale Zurückweisungen von Flüchtlingen verwickelt sind.

      Seit April waren Frontex-Beamte nachweislich bei mindestens sechs sogenannten Pushbacks in der Nähe. Auf einem Video ist zu sehen, wie ein Frontex-Schiff ein überladenes Flüchtlingsboot zunächst blockiert, die Insassen aber nicht rettet. Stattdessen fahren die Frontex-Beamten mit hohem Tempo an dem Flüchtlingsboot vorbei und verlassen dann den Ort des Geschehens. Vertrauliche Gespräche mit Frontex-Beamten legten zudem nahe, dass diese ihre Berichte schönen, bevor sie an die Zentrale in Warschau geschickt werden.

      Keine Äußerung von Frontex und Griechenland

      Frontex ist auf die Vorwürfe bis heute nicht im Detail eingegangen. Alle gemeldeten Vorfälle seien an die griechische Küstenwache weitergeleitet worden, diese habe eine interne Untersuchung eingeleitet, teilte die Genzschutzagentur in einem Statement mit. Nach der Antwort der griechischen Behörden seien seine Zweifel ausgeräumt, sagte Leggeri zudem in einem Interview.

      Auch die griechischen Behörden hatten sich zu den Pushbacks nicht im Detail äußern wollen. Sie bestreiten die Vorwürfe pauschal, obwohl die ARD, der „Spiegel“ und andere Medien die Pushbacks mehrfach dokumentiert haben. Nach Angaben von Teilnehmern im „Spiegel“ sahen sich vor allem die griechischen Mitglieder des Management Boards bei dem Treffen Fragen ausgesetzt. Diskutiert wurde unter anderem ein Statement, welches betonen sollte, dass Frontex sich bei schwerwiegenden und anhaltenden Menschenrechtsverletzungen von Missionen wie der in der Ägäis zurückziehen muss.

      Griechen haben Angst vor Bloßstellung

      Ein solche Vorschrift findet sich schon jetzt in den Frontex-Regularien. Beamte einiger weniger Mitgliedsstaaten legten ihr Veto dagegen ein, dass die Anwendung dieser Regel nun in den Raum gestellt werden soll. Besonders die griechischen Teilnehmer fürchteten, dass das Statement die griechische Regierung bloßstellen könnte.

      Am Ende einigte man sich auf einen Kompromiss. Es soll ein Komitee geschaffen werden, das sich mit rechtlichen Fragen zu Einsätzen an der Seegrenzen beschäftigt, heißt es in einem Frontex-Statement. Die Kommission solle dem Vorschlag zufolge die Arbeit des Komitees koordinieren, Mitgliedsstaaten könnten sich auf freiwilliger Basis beteiligen. Im Komitee sollen auch die Sorgen einige Mitgliedsstaaten vor „hybriden Bedrohungen“ eine Rolle spielen. Vor allem Griechenland hatte immer wieder davor gewarnt, dass türkische Geheimdienste sich unter die Migranten auf den Inseln mischen könnten.

      Außerdem will Frontex nach eigener Aussage den sogenannten Fundamental Rights Officer stärken. Der Beamte ist bei Frontex dafür zuständig, dass die Grenzschützer die Grundrechte von Schutzsuchenden achten. Allerdings halten Beobachter alle bestehenden internen Überwachungsmechanismen bei Frontex für unzureichend.
      Kritik aus Europaparlament

      Nach den Enthüllungen der ARD und ihrer Recherchepartner hatten mehrere Europaparlamentarier von Leggeri eine vollständige Untersuchung der Vorwürfe gefordert. Die Grünen-EU-Abgeordnete Tineke Strik kritisierte das Frontex-Statement. Die Ankündigung erwähne die Menschenrechtsverletzungen an der Grenze nicht, sagte sie. Ein Komitee ersetze keine wirklich unabhängige und transparente Untersuchung. „Die Bürger müssen erfahren, was geschehen ist und wie Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Zukunft verhindert werden sollen“, so Strik.

      „Das Ganze ist eine große Nebelkerze“, sagte Europaparlamentarier Dietmar Köster von der SPD. „Es ist ein einzigartiger Vertuschungsversuch, von der eigenen Verantwortung und dem Versagen bei der Einhaltung von Menschenrechten abzulenken“,

      https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/report-mainz/frontex-pushbacks-103.html

    • EU-Grenzpolizei Frontex: Keine Untersuchung zu Verstößen gegen Menschenrechte

      Im März war die EU-Grenzpolizei Frontex in einen versuchten Verstoß gegen Menschenrechte verwickelt. Wie von uns veröffentlichte Akten zeigen, untersuchte Frontex den Vorfall aber nicht, sondern kehrte ihn unter den Teppich.

      Als ARD, Spiegel und Bellingcat vor drei Wochen aufdeckten, dass die Europäische Grenzpolizei Frontex an illegalen Pushbacks an EU-Grenzen beteiligt ist, versprach der Frontex-Direktor Fabrice Leggeri schnell Aufklärung. Die EU-Agentur werde die Vorwürfe untersuchen, nach denen Frontex Geflüchtete völkerrechtswidrig aus der EU abgeschoben hatte.

      „Jeder Vorwurf des Fehlverhaltens oder der Verletzung internationaler Verträge oder Grundrechte im Rahmen gemeinsamer Operationen, die von Frontex koordiniert werden, wird mit großer Besorgnis behandelt und sorgfältig untersucht.“

      Frontex-Direktor Fabrice Leggeri (Übersetzung von FragDenStaat)

      Ein interner E-Mail-Verlauf von Frontex, den wir per Informationsfreiheitsanfrage erhalten haben, zeigt jetzt jedoch, dass die EU-Agentur in vergleichbaren Fällen offenbar kein Interesse daran hat, Verstöße gegen Menschenrechte zu untersuchen. EU Observer hatte zunächst darüber berichtet.
      Dänemark widersetzt sich Frontex-Befehlen

      Bereits am 2. März diesen Jahres hatte Frontex in der Nähe der griechischen Insel Kos versucht, ein Boot mit 33 geflüchteten Menschen, die griechische Gewässer erreicht hatten, in die Türkei abzuschieben. Das griechische Frontex-Kommando befahl einem Schiff der Dänischen Marine mit dem Namen „Stela Polaris“, die Geflüchteten nicht an Land zu bringen, sondern wieder in ein Gummiboot zu setzen und aufs offene Meer Richtung Türkei zu schleppen. Der dänische Befehlshaber des Schiffes widersetzte sich dem rechtswidrigen Befehl jedoch und erreichte durch seine dänischen Vorgesetzten, dass er aufgehoben wurde.

      Frontex hatte den Vorgang bisher nie öffentlich zugegeben. Der dazugehörige E-Mail-Verkehr aus der Frontex-Zentrale in Warschau, den wir veröffentlichen, zeigt, dass Pushbacks die Entscheidungsträger um Direktor Fabrice Leggeri kaum interessierten. Erst aus der Presse erfuhr das Hauptquartier überhaupt davon, dass Frontex in einen versuchten Verstoß gegen die Menschenrechte verwickelt war.

      Einen Bericht – intern Serious Incident Report genannt – gab es trotz der Schwere des Vorfalls nicht. Die Frontex-Pressesprecherin forderte deswegen in Erwartung von Presseanfragen am Morgen des 6. März, vier Tage nach dem Vorfall, bei ihren Kolleg:innen einen Bericht zu den Vorfällen an. Am Nachmittag wurde sie informiert, dass es in der Tat einen versuchten Pushback gegeben hatte.

      Menschenrechte geprüft in vier Stunden

      Bemerkenswert ist, wie die Frontex-Zentrale anschließend mit den Informationen umging: Es schloss die Akten. Bereits vier Stunden nach der Meldung über Vorfall kamen die Frontex-Mitarbeiter:innen zu der Einschätzung, der versuchte Pushback sei ein „Einzelfall“. Er wurde noch nicht einmal beim täglichen Treffen der Befehlshabenden in der Frontex-Mission besprochen.

      Weitere Informationen zu dem Vorfall finden sich in den Akten laut Frontex nicht. Die Frontex-Mitarbeiter:innen überprüften nicht die Kommando-Strukturen und prüften nicht, warum es keinen internen Bericht zu dem rechtswidrigen Befehl gab. Sie unternahmen auch sonst keine Versuche, um sicherzustellen, dass Pushbacks durch das Frontex-Kommando nicht mehr vorkommen würden. Im Sommer schließlich gab Frontex-Direktor gegenüber dem Europäischen Parlament zu Protokoll, der versuchte Pushback sei ein „Missverständnis“ gewesen.

      Einige Monate später fanden Journalist:innen Beweise dafür, dass es sich offenbar nicht um einen Einzelfall handelt und Frontex mindestens im Juni an weiteren Pushbacks beteiligt war. Die EU-Agentur hatte offenbar kein Interesse daran, Verstöße gegen Menschenrechte zu unterbinden.

      https://fragdenstaat.de/blog/2020/11/18/frontex-pushbacks-denmark

    • Council of Europe’s anti-torture Committee calls on Greece to reform its immigration detention system and stop pushbacks

      In a report published today on a rapid reaction ad hoc visit to Greece in March 2020, the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee (CPT) once again urges the Greek authorities to change their approach towards immigration detention and to ensure that migrants deprived of their liberty are treated both with dignity and humanity.

      The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has published today the report on its ad hoc visit to Greece, which took place from 13 to 17 March 2020, together with the response of the Greek authorities.

      In the report, the CPT acknowledges the significant challenges faced by the Greek authorities in dealing with large numbers of migrants entering the country and that it requires a coordinated European approach. However, this cannot absolve the the Hellenic Republic from their human rights obligations and the duty of care owed to all migrants that the Greek authorities detain.

      The CPT found that the conditions of detention in which migrants were held in certain facilities in the Evros region and on the island of Samos could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. The report again underlines the structural deficiencies in Greece’s immigration detention policy. Migrants continue to be held in detention centres composed of large barred cells crammed with beds, with poor lighting and ventilation, dilapidated and broken toilets and washrooms, insufficient personal hygiene products and cleaning materials, inadequate food and no access to outdoor daily exercise. Extreme overcrowding in several of the facilities further aggravated the situation. In addition, migrants were not provided with clear information about their situation.

      The CPT once again found that families with children, unaccompanied and separated children and other vulnerable persons (with a physical or mental health illness, or pregnant women) were being detained in such appalling conditions with no appropriate support. The CPT calls upon the Greek authorities to end the detention of unaccompanied children and of children with their parents in police establishments. Instead, they should be transferred to suitable reception facilities catering to their specific needs.

      The report also highlights that the CPT again received consistent and credible allegations of migrants being pushed back across the Evros River border to Turkey. The Greek authorities should act to prevent such pushbacks. The CPT furthermore raises concerns over acts by the Greek Coast Guard to prevent boats carrying migrants from reaching any Greek island and it questions the role and engagement of FRONTEX in such operations.

      The CPT calls upon the Greek authorities to take vigorous steps to stamp out ill-treatment of detained migrants by the police. The report refers to a number of allegations by migrants that they had been ill treated by members of the Hellenic Police and/or Coast Guard either upon apprehension or after being brought to a place of detention. The ill treatment alleged consisted primarily of slaps to the head and kicks and truncheon blows to the body.

      In their response, the Hellenic Police provide information on the steps being taken to improve the conditions of detention for detained migrants. They also state that the alleged practice of pushbacks to the border is unsubstantiated and completely wrong. As regards unaccompanied minors, reference is made to a new strategy to end their detention and to their transfer from reception centres on the islands to safe accommodation facilities on the mainland.

      https://search.coe.int/directorate_of_communications/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680a06bcf

    • Annex to the reply of Fabrice Leggeri to the LIBE Committee

      https://www.tinekestrik.eu/sites/default/files/2020-11/Answers%20to%20the%20questions%20from%20the%20LIBE%20Commitee.pdf

      –---

      Thread sur twitter:

      It looks like Frontex are NOT denying that they may be involved in #pushbacks after all. FL partly evades (’...always committed...’) and partly seems to blame the ’uniqueness’ of operational areas & ’complex geography’ of the Greek and Turkish border for FX being involved in pushbacks.

      –---

      The earlier letter sent to the EP President might offer some clues. I’m not a legal expert, but FL seems to suggest that Art. 6 of Reg. 656/2014 (on interception at sea) needs to be clarified so as to define what constitutes a #pushback. Interesting.
      https://www.tinekestrik.eu/sites/default/files/2020-11/Letter%20to%20EP_Frontex%20maritime%20operations%20at%20EU%20external%20

      –—

      Yet not all pushbacks happen at sea. While the request for interpretation above might mean that FX is looking for a way out re: #pushbacks at the Aegean, what about those at the
      Greek-Turkish land border? I think there’s less concern with #pushbacks at #Evros, though. No videos...

      –---

      Back to the Annex: We know SIRs weren’t submitted as they should. The real question is why. It might be down to officers on the ground lacking in training (they shouldn’t, but...) or not wanting to get their colleagues in trouble (the spirit of camaraderie...).

      –---

      BUT: Today’s Spiegel article refers to a ’Frontex official in charge’ advising a Swedish officer not to submit a SIR. FX management were aware few SIRs being submitted for years. Is it a practice dictated from the top? To avoid having evidence of violations?

      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/pushbacks-in-der-aegaeis-wie-frontex-menschenrechtsverletzungen-vertuscht-a-

      –—

      Suspension/non-launch of operations has never happened. The ED didn’t take into account reports by NGOs or human rights bodies when considering the 2016 recommendation to suspend operations in Hungary. He relied on the very low number of SIRs to reject it.
      https://respondmigration.com/wp-blog/fundamental-rights-accountability-transparency-european-governance

      –—

      Same with the 2019 & 2020 recommendations of the FRO to consider suspension of operations in #Evros. As for taking into account media reports ... well, I’d say the reply to the LIBE committee reads like the media accounts are being dismissed.

      https://twitter.com/lk2015r/status/1331662031095787521

    • E.U. Border Agency Accused of Covering Up Migrant Pushback in Greece

      Frontex is under fire for letting Greece illegally repel migrants as the agency expands to play a more central role at the bloc’s external borders.

      Mounting evidence indicates that the European Union’s border agency has been complicit in Greece’s illegal practice of pushing back migrants to Turkey, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with officials.

      In at least one case, Frontex, as the E.U. border agency is known, is accused of having helped cover up the violations, when a crew said it was discouraged by agency officials from reporting that they had seen the Greek authorities setting a boatload of migrants adrift in Turkish waters.

      The case is currently being investigated by Frontex. But it has fueled suspicions that the agency, newly boosted in its role as upholder of the rule of law at E.U. borders, is not just sporadically aware of such abuses, but that it plays a role in concealing them.

      “We are seeing an erosion of the rule of law at the E.U. borders which is willful,” said Gerald Knaus, a migration expert. “This is deeply worrying because it is eroding the refugee convention on the continent on which it was created.”

      Throughout this year, The New York Times and others have reported on growing operations by the Greek Coast Guard to repel migrants from Greek waters back to Turkey, reports the Greek authorities deny amount to breaches of international laws.

      But revelations that Frontex has witnessed pushbacks have thrown the agency into a governance crisis that threatens to further blight the European Union’s liberal values, once again calling into question the bloc’s commitment to upholding its own laws on refugees.

      The cases have also highlighted a conundrum at the core of E.U. ambitions to tighten external borders by pooling resources and involving the bloc in the sensitive, zealously shielded work of sovereign border guards.

      Frontex is the European Union’s best-funded agency, with a budget of over $500 million, and will soon deploy the first uniformed officers in the bloc’s history. It has been built up specifically to help in migrant-rescue operations as the burden of policing Europe’s borders has fallen most heavily on its peripheral states, like Greece.

      It was also intended as a deterrent to the kind of mass arrival of refugees that sowed political crises across Europe after 2015, and fanned nationalist and populist movements.

      Yet Frontex is not empowered to stop national border guards from committing violations, and it is not clear how it can play a role as standard-bearer of E.U. laws when informing on national forces risks the working relationships on which its operations depend.

      Refugee arrivals to the European Union peaked five years ago and have dropped drastically since, but thousands of asylum seekers, many fleeing the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, still attempt the crossing. Unlike in the past, Greeks and their government have turned hostile to the new arrivals, exhausted by years in which asylum seekers have been bottled up in overrun camps on Greek islands.

      There is also a growing belief in the Greek and several other European governments that aggression at the borders and poor conditions at migrant camps will make the attempt to reach Europe less attractive for asylum seekers.

      Earlier this year, an analysis by The Times showed that the Greek government had secretly expelled more than 1,000 asylum seekers, often by sailing them to the edge of Greek territorial waters and abandoning them in flimsy inflatable life rafts in violation of international laws.

      The Greek Coast Guard has rescued thousands of asylum seekers over the years but has become much more aggressive this year, especially as Turkey used migrants to provoke Greece by encouraging them to cross the border.

      The Greek government has denied it is doing anything illegal in repelling migrant boats from its national waters, characterizing the operations as robust border guarding. But Mr. Knaus said “the denials are not serious,” and the practices are effectively happening in the open — under the eyes of E.U. border patrols.

      The documents obtained by The Times describe, in Coast Guard vernacular littered with acronyms, codes, time-stamps and coordinates, a seemingly incessant Ping-Pong of migrant dinghies between Greek and Turkish waters, with Frontex crews on vessels or aircraft in observer status.

      Four officials with direct knowledge of Frontex operations said that agency officials have been discouraging crews from filing reports on pushback incidents, and, in some cases, have stopped initial alerts of violations from being filed as “serious incident reports,” at times after consulting with the Greek authorities.

      They all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were concerned about losing their jobs, or were not authorized to brief the press.

      The Frontex spokesman, Chris Borowski, said the agency took the reporting of violations very seriously. “Pushbacks are illegal under international law,” Mr. Borowski said.

      In the latest case to come to light, a Swedish Coast Guard crew on deployment under Frontex witnessed a pushback to Turkish waters of a boat full of migrants by the Greek authorities on Oct. 30 off the Greek island of Chios.

      The Swedish crew was later advised by a Frontex officer to not report it, documents reviewed by The Times show. The Swedish representative to the management board of Frontex described the incident, and the suppression of the attempt to report it, at a meeting on Nov. 10 — the first known case of an E.U. member state reporting active interference by Frontex officials.

      The Swedish government did not comment. A spokesman for Frontex said the agency wouldn’t comment because of an “ongoing procedure.”

      Frontex has been working in Greece for more than a decade, providing sea, land and aerial surveillance and rescue capabilities and deploying crews from other member states under its command.

      The details now emerging push the agency deeper into a governance crisis which began in October when a consortium of news organizations, including the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, reported a number of occasions when Frontex crews witnessed pushbacks in Greece.

      The European Commission, which is part of the Frontex oversight system but does not control the agency, pushed for a special inquiry into these allegations and, at an emergency agency board meeting on Nov. 10, asked its leadership to answer detailed questions in writing.

      The answers arrived with a four-day delay, just 15 hours before the start of another meeting to discuss the problems on Wednesday. Yet another emergency meeting has been called in December, mounting pressure on the agency.

      Frontex has promised internal investigations but also quickly dismissed allegations, saying for example, in a letter seen by The Times, that it would look into the Swedish case, but that it had so far found no evidence that it happened.

      How these investigations shake out will matter a great deal for the future of Frontex, which was once little more than a back-office operation in Warsaw but now finds itself on the front lines of the nettlesome issue of migration that has the potency to make or break governments.

      Apart from helping member states with asylum-seeker arrivals, Frontex’s role as an E.U. agency by law is to respect fundamental rights, and bring up human-rights standards across national E.U. border agencies, which often don’t have a strong culture of upholding them.

      But claims that Frontex does not take fundamental rights seriously enough are growing. This year, only one million euros in its budget of 460 million euros — about $548 million — was allocated to rights monitoring.

      The agency was supposed to hire 40 fundamental-rights officers by Dec. 5 but the jobs have not yet been advertised. The agency is currently hiring for their boss, after years of staffing issues around that position. A Frontex spokesman said the delays stemmed from the coronavirus pandemic.

      Documents seen by The Times laid out how in one episode the Greek authorities were consulted before a report was made, and were able to suppress it. On Aug. 10, a German crew deployed by Frontex reported that a Greek Coast Guard vessel “took up border control measures prohibiting the landing to Samos.”

      The expression refers to maneuvering and making waves around a dinghy to repel it. The event was not recorded as a “serious incident,” because, the document said, the Greek Coast Guard argued the activities “do not provide any ground” to initiate such a report.

      Another incident, which a Frontex aerial crew observed and reported in detail to its headquarters, took place on the evening of April 18 to 19 off the coast of Lesbos, and lasted more than five hours.

      A dinghy was detected by the Greek authorities and approximately 20 migrants were rescued and put on board a Greek Coast Guard vessel shortly after midnight, their empty dinghy towed by the Coast Guard toward the island.

      But instead of being taken to shore, at 2:45 a.m., the migrants were put back on their dinghy and tugged to Turkish waters by the Greek Coast Guard, the Frontex aerial crew reported.

      As events unfolded, the Greek command center twice asked the Frontex aircraft to change its flight path, directing it away from the incident.

      “At 03:21 Frontex Surveillance Aircraft communicates that the rubber boat has no engine and it is adrift. Greek assets are departing the area leaving the rubber boat adrift,” the document said.

      The internal Frontex report detailing this incident and categorizing it as a fundamental-rights violation was “dismissed,” the document shows.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/world/europe/frontex-migrants-pushback-greece.html

    • La Grèce fortement soupçonnée de refouler les migrants

      L’agence européenne Frontex, potentiellement impliquée dans les refoulements, mène une enquête interne et doit fournir des explications à la Commission européenne fin novembre. Une plainte a été déposée le 17 novembre auprès du comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU.

      L’étau se resserre autour de la Grèce, de plus en plus fréquemment accusée de refouler les migrants vers la Turquie, aussi bien en mer qu’à terre. Le soupçon n’est pas nouveau, comme l’atteste le terrible récit de Fadi Faj. Ce jeune Syrien de 25 ans est arrivé en 2015 avec l’immense vague de demandeurs d’asile en Allemagne. Berlin lui octroie alors le statut de réfugié et un permis de séjour avec lequel il se rend en Grèce en novembre 2016, à la recherche de son jeune frère de 11 ans dont il a perdu la trace lors de sa traversée de la frontière greco-turque à Evros.

      Fadi Faj est alors arrêté par la police grecque qui lui confisque ses papiers et l’expulse vers la Turquie avec une cinquantaine d’autres demandeurs d’asile. Devenu un sans-papier, il sera à treize reprises repoussé de part et d’autre de la frontière par les forces grecques ou turques. Ayant enfin mis un pied à terre en Grèce en décembre 2017, il y vivra encore deux ans dans le dénuement avant d’obtenir un visa pour regagner l’Allemagne qui lui délivrera un nouveau permis de séjour en mai 2020.

      Une plainte auprès du Comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU

      Ce récit glaçant fait l’objet d’une plainte à l’encontre de la Grèce déposée le 17 novembre auprès du Comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU, par le Global Legal Action Network (Réseau mondial d’action juridique) basé en Irlande et l’ONG grecque HumanRights 360.

      Entre-temps, les cas du même type se sont multipliés. Surtout depuis le printemps dernier, après que le président turc Erdogan a menacé d’ouvrir les frontières et incité les migrants à se diriger vers la Grèce. « J’ai vu de mes yeux vu deux refoulements en mer depuis ma maison sur la côte nord de Lesbos », dénonce ainsi Christina Chatzidaki, une habitante de l’île qui jouxte les côtes turques, et y dirige l’association Siniparxi (Coexistence).

      Alarm phone qui reçoit les appels de détresse des embarcations en mer se déclarait en mai dernier « très préoccupé par la récente augmentation des rapports d’attaques sur les bateaux de migrants ». L’ONG avait alors engrangé les témoignages de survivants de 18 bateaux. « Ils ont fait état d’actions dangereuses, telles que le fait de tourner autour de leurs bateaux et de provoquer des vagues, des menaces avec des armes à feu, le vol de leur essence, la destruction de moteurs et, également, le remorquage de bateaux vers les eaux turques où ils ont été laissés à la dérive », précise l’ONG.
      Intimer la Commission d’agir

      Les dénonciations de pratiques qui violent les droits humains, et contreviennent au droit de la mer et au droit européen n’ont pas cessé par la suite. Le porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) déclarait le 12 juin dernier : « le HCR a continuellement fait état de ses préoccupations auprès du gouvernement grec et a demandé des enquêtes urgentes sur une série d’incidents présumés ». Il soulignait alors la corrélation entre la forte baisse du nombre d’arrivées de migrants en Grèce et l’augmentation du nombre de refoulements signalés. En 2019, 60 000 personnes avaient débarqué en Grèce par la mer et 15 000 par la terre. En 2020, jusqu’au 22 novembre, ils ne sont plus, respectivement, que 9 400 et 5 400.

      Jusqu’à présent la Grèce a nié ces allégations. « Nous protégeons nos frontières en accord avec les lois internationales et européennes » a encore affirmé le ministre grec de l’immigration Notis Mitarakis le 13 novembre dernier au site Infomigrants. Deux mois auparavant, le 22 septembre, les ONG Oxfam et WeMove adressaient une plainte auprès de la Commission européenne pour l’intimer de mener « une enquête sur les violations systématiques du droit européen concernant le traitement des demandeurs d’asile en Grèce ».
      La possible implication de Frontex

      Enfin, le site d’investigation Bellingcat et le magazine allemand Der Spiegel apportèrent en octobre un coup de grâce supplémentaire, en dénonçant, images à l’appui, le laisser-faire, voire l’implication, de l’agence européenne de surveillance aux frontières Frontex - qui a déployé plus de 600 agents en Grèce - dans six cas documentés de pratique illégale de refoulement.

      Un soupçon repris par le comité contre la torture du Conseil de l’Europe. Dans son rapport publié le 19 novembre, le comité a indiqué « avoir de nouveau reçu des allégations cohérentes et crédibles de migrants repoussés vers la Turquie ».

      Il s’est déclaré « inquiet des actes commis par les garde-côtes grecs pour empêcher les bateaux transportant des migrants d’atteindre les îles grecques » et « s’interroge sur le rôle et l’implication de Frontex dans de telles opérations ».

      Face à une telle avalanche, l’Union européenne pouvait difficilement continuer à se voiler la face. La suédoise Ylva Johansson, commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures a réclamé des explications pour fin novembre à l’agence Frontex, laquelle a indiqué avoir ouvert une enquête interne.

      https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Grece-fortement-soupconnee-refouler-migrants-2020-11-24-1201126401

    • Refoulements de demandeurs d’asile : le directeur de Frontex interrogé par les députés

      La supposée implication d’agents de Frontex dans les refoulements de demandeurs d’asile à la frontière grecque sera au cœur du débat en commission des libertés civiles mardi.

      Les députés seront en attente de réponses de la part du directeur exécutif de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, Fabrice Leggeri, concernant les incidents révélés récemment par les médias au cours desquels des garde-côtes grecs (avec la connaissance présumée et même l’implication d’agents de Frontex) ont arrêté des migrants qui tentaient d’atteindre les côtes de l’UE et les ont renvoyés dans les eaux turques. Les députés devraient s’enquérir des résultats de l’enquête interne menée par l’Agence européenne de gestion des frontières et de la réunion du conseil d’administration convoquée à la demande de la Commission européenne.

      En octobre dernier, avant les révélations des médias, le forum consultatif de Frontex (qui réunit notamment des représentants du Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile (EASO), de l’Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’UE (FRA), du HCR, du Conseil de l’Europe et de l’OIM) avait exprimé son inquiétude dans son rapport annuel. Le forum pointait du doigt l’absence de véritable système de contrôle permettant de prévenir et de traiter les violations potentielles des droits fondamentaux dans les activités de l’Agence.

      Le 6 juillet, au cours d’une précédente réunion de la commission des libertés civiles, Fabrice Leggeri avait assuré aux eurodéputés que Frontex n’était pas impliquée dans les refoulements et avait qualifié l’incident avec l’équipe danoise à bord de l’un des navires de l’Agence de ‘‘malentendu’’.

      DATE : mardi 1er décembre de 13h50 à 14h45

      LIEU : Parlement européen à Bruxelles, bâtiment Antall, salle 4Q2 et à distance

      https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20201126IPR92509

    • EU border chief urged to quit over migrant pushback claims

      European Union lawmakers lashed out Tuesday at the head of Frontex over allegations that the border and coast guard agency helped illegally stop migrants or refugees entering Europe, calling for his resignation and demanding an independent inquiry.

      The lawmakers grilled Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri over an investigation in October by media outlets Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asahi, which said that video and other publicly available data suggest Frontex “assets were actively involved in one pushback incident at the Greek-Turkish maritime border in the Aegean Sea.”

      The report said personnel from the agency, which monitors and polices migrant movements around Europe’s borders, were present at another incident and “have been in the vicinity of four more since March.” Frontex launched an internal probe after the news broke.

      “In his handling of these allegations, Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri has completely lost our trust and it is time for him to resign,” senior Socialist lawmaker Kati Piri said in a statement after the parliamentary civil liberties committee hearing. “There are still far too many unanswered questions on the involvement of Frontex in illegal practices.”

      Pushbacks are considered contrary to international refugee protection agreements, which say people shouldn’t be expelled or returned to a country where their life and safety might be in danger due to their race, religion, nationality or being members of a social or political group.

      Frontex’s board met to discuss the allegations late last month. The board said afterwards that the European Commission had ordered it to “hold a further extraordinary meeting within the next two weeks in order to consider in more detail the replies provided by the agency.” That meeting is scheduled to take place on Dec. 9.

      “Migrants and refugees are very vulnerable to pushbacks by border guards,” Greens lawmaker Tineke Strik said. “We must be able to rely on an EU agency which prevents human rights violations from happening and not inflict them. But Frontex seems to be a partner in crime of those who deliberately violate those human rights.”

      Strik raised doubts about whether the internal Frontex probe would produce results and urged the assembly’s political groups to consider launching their own inquiry.

      Leggeri said that no evidence of any Frontex involvement in pushbacks had been found so far. He said EU member countries have control over operations in their waters, not Frontex, and he called for the rules governing surveillance of Europe’s external borders to be clarified.

      “We have not found evidence that there were active, direct or indirect participation of Frontex staff or officers deployed by Frontex in pushbacks,” he told the lawmakers. When it comes to operations, Leggeri said, “only the host member state authorities can decide what has to be done.”

      Leggeri also said that Frontex staff were under extreme pressure around the time of the alleged incidents in March and April. He said that Turkish F-16 fighter jets had “surrounded” a Danish plane working for Frontex, while vessels were harassed by the Turkish coast guard and shots fired at personnel at land borders.

      He called for EU “guidance” on how to handle such situations.

      The allegations are extremely embarrassing for the European Commission. In September it unveiled sweeping new reforms to the EU’s asylum system, which proved dismally inadequate when over 1 million migrants arrived in 2015, many of them Syrian refugees entering the Greek islands via Turkey.

      Part of the EU’s migration reforms includes a system of independent monitoring involving rights experts to ensure that there are no pushbacks at Europe’s borders. Migrant entries have dropped to a relative trickle in recent years, although many migrants still languish on some Greek islands waiting for their asylum claims to be processed or to be sent back.

      EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she still has confidence in Frontex’s managing board but remains deeply concerned about the allegations.

      During a visit to Morocco, Johansson said that the report “concerns me a lot. If it’s true, it’s totally unacceptable. A European agency has to comply to EU law and fundamental rights with no excuse.”

      Johansson said she has “full confidence in the process that (has) gone on in the management board and the sub-group they are setting up” to continue the investigation, but, she noted that “there were a lot of questions put to the director. And he has not answered these questions.”

      https://www.ekathimerini.com/259789/article/ekathimerini/news/eu-border-chief-urged-to-quit-over-migrant-pushback-claims

    • Frontex is taking us to court

      The EU border police Frontex is under fire for its involvement in human rights violations at the EU’s borders. Now, they want to silence those exposing their wrongdoing.

      For many years, we have been fighting to make Frontex, the EU’s border police, more transparent and accountable. We have made public over a thousand of their documents, including those that show the agency has been complicit in human rights violations and violence against migrants at the EU’s borders.

      Frontex is currently under fire for its involvement in illegal pushbacks in the Aegean and for having concealed evidence about these illegal acts. Confronted with such serious accusations, the EU border agency has now chosen to go after those who investigate them: they are taking us to court.

      Frontex has filed a case against us before the General Court of the European Union in order to force us to pay them a large amount of money. Last year, we lost our lawsuit for information about Frontex and now, the agency is demanding from us excessive legal fees. The message is clear: they want to make sure that we never take them to court again.
      Details must remain secret

      For the time being, we will not be able to disclose further details related to the case due to the court’s rules on keeping all information secret while proceedings are ongoing. Back in January, the agency justified their excessive legal fees on their decision to hire expensive private lawyers.

      Frontex, which has a billion-euro budget, making it the best resourced EU agency, employs a well-staffed internal legal department. Both the decision to hire private lawyers and to then claim these costs from civil society are highly unusual in court cases against the EU authorities.
      What happens if Frontex wins?

      If Frontex succeeds, in the future only corporations and the rich will be able to afford legal action against EU authorities. Activists, journalists, NGOs and individuals will not be able to defend human rights before the EU court. Frontex bringing a case like this directly against civil society, let alone winning, discourages others from holding them accountable in the future. It’s this chilling effect that we believe they’re hoping for.

      In the spring, more than 87,000 people petitioned Frontex to withdraw their legal bill. 44 civil society organizations also called on Frontex to retract its demand. Frontex has nonetheless chosen to ignore their voices.

      In recent years, Frontex has experienced an enormous increase of power and resources. Not only is it about to receive € 11 billion under the next EU budget, but it can also now hire its own border guards and buy its own equipment, including aircrafts, ships, drones and weapons.

      Investigating Frontex and holding it accountable is now more important than ever. As recent publications have revealed, the EU border force has been involved in numerous human rights violations at the EU borders.
      What you can do

      Our freedom of information work is financed by individual donations. We will fight in court for a judgement that gives Frontex as little money as possible. If you want to support us in this, we would be very happy to receive a donation. We will use every extra euro for new investigations and legal action against Frontex.

      https://fragdenstaat.de/en/blog/2020/12/02/frontex-costs-court-transparency

    • S&Ds call for Frontex Director to resign

      The S&D Group in the European Parliament today called for the Executive Director of Frontex to resign following months of allegations on the agency’s involvement in illegal practices and violations of fundamental rights.

      In today’s hearing of the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee (LIBE), Director Fabrice Leggeri failed to answer questions relating to the agency’s involvement in pushbacks at the EU’s external borders aimed at preventing asylum-seekers from entering the EU.

      Following the hearing, S&D MEPs concluded Mr Leggeri’s position at the head of Frontex is not sustainable, especially in light of the important role for Frontex in the new Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      Kati Piri, S&D vice-president for migration and LIBE member taking part in the hearing, said

      “In his handling of these allegations, Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri has completely lost our trust and it is time for him to resign. After months of the S&D Group calling for explanations, Director Leggeri had the chance to set the record straight. But there are still far too many unanswered questions on the involvement of Frontex in illegal practices.

      “Pushbacks are a violation of international law and every single incident must be fully investigated. Do we have the confidence in Frontex to ensure alleged incidents are properly investigated? After today, the answer is no.

      “As long as allegations hang over Frontex, its reputation remains severely damaged and in desperate need of repair. In our view, Director Leggeri is not the right person to fix the damage.”

      Birgit Sippel, S&D LIBE coordinator, added:

      “We have to ask ourselves how we got to the point where we have to rely on journalists and whistle-blowers in Frontex to inform us of instances of fundamental and human rights violations at our borders. This is unacceptable and deeply disturbing, in particular when considering the potentially increased role of Frontex as part of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      “The series of alleged pushbacks and cover-ups from Frontex show that we need a strong and independent border monitoring mechanism to investigate any and all alleged violations of fundamental and human rights and international laws at European borders.

      “Under the 2019 Frontex mandate, the Agency was obliged to have recruited at least 40 Fundamental Rights Monitors by 5 December 2020. It is now clear that Frontex will not even have come close to fulfilling this task, and therefore will not comply with the new mandate. Blaming bureaucratic hurdles for the delay of such an important task is insufficient, while the Commission’s role in this delay requires further examination as well. Mr Leggeri has failed in many of his responsibilities and must bear the consequences of his actions.”

      https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/sds-call-frontex-director-resign

    • E.U. Border Agency Accused of Covering Up Migrant Pushback in Greece

      Frontex is under fire for letting Greece illegally repel migrants as the agency expands to play a more central role at the bloc’s external borders.

      Mounting evidence indicates that the European Union’s border agency has been complicit in Greece’s illegal practice of pushing back migrants to Turkey, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with officials.

      In at least one case, Frontex, as the E.U. border agency is known, is accused of having helped cover up the violations, when a crew said it was discouraged by agency officials from reporting that they had seen the Greek authorities setting a boatload of migrants adrift in Turkish waters.

      The case is currently being investigated by Frontex. But it has fueled suspicions that the agency, newly boosted in its role as upholder of the rule of law at E.U. borders, is not just sporadically aware of such abuses, but that it plays a role in concealing them.

      “We are seeing an erosion of the rule of law at the E.U. borders which is willful,” said Gerald Knaus, a migration expert. “This is deeply worrying because it is eroding the refugee convention on the continent on which it was created.”

      Throughout this year, The New York Times and others have reported on growing operations by the Greek Coast Guard to repel migrants from Greek waters back to Turkey, reports the Greek authorities deny amount to breaches of international laws.

      But revelations that Frontex has witnessed pushbacks have thrown the agency into a governance crisis that threatens to further blight the European Union’s liberal values, once again calling into question the bloc’s commitment to upholding its own laws on refugees.

      The cases have also highlighted a conundrum at the core of E.U. ambitions to tighten external borders by pooling resources and involving the bloc in the sensitive, zealously shielded work of sovereign border guards.

      Frontex is the European Union’s best-funded agency, with a budget of over $500 million, and will soon deploy the first uniformed officers in the bloc’s history. It has been built up specifically to help in migrant-rescue operations as the burden of policing Europe’s borders has fallen most heavily on its peripheral states, like Greece.

      It was also intended as a deterrent to the kind of mass arrival of refugees that sowed political crises across Europe after 2015, and fanned nationalist and populist movements.

      Yet Frontex is not empowered to stop national border guards from committing violations, and it is not clear how it can play a role as standard-bearer of E.U. laws when informing on national forces risks the working relationships on which its operations depend.

      Refugee arrivals to the European Union peaked five years ago and have dropped drastically since, but thousands of asylum seekers, many fleeing the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, still attempt the crossing. Unlike in the past, Greeks and their government have turned hostile to the new arrivals, exhausted by years in which asylum seekers have been bottled up in overrun camps on Greek islands.

      There is also a growing belief in the Greek and several other European governments that aggression at the borders and poor conditions at migrant camps will make the attempt to reach Europe less attractive for asylum seekers.

      Earlier this year, an analysis by The Times showed that the Greek government had secretly expelled more than 1,000 asylum seekers, often by sailing them to the edge of Greek territorial waters and abandoning them in flimsy inflatable life rafts in violation of international laws.

      The Greek Coast Guard has rescued thousands of asylum seekers over the years but has become much more aggressive this year, especially as Turkey used migrants to provoke Greece by encouraging them to cross the border.

      The Greek government has denied it is doing anything illegal in repelling migrant boats from its national waters, characterizing the operations as robust border guarding. But Mr. Knaus said “the denials are not serious,” and the practices are effectively happening in the open — under the eyes of E.U. border patrols.

      The documents obtained by The Times describe, in Coast Guard vernacular littered with acronyms, codes, time-stamps and coordinates, a seemingly incessant Ping-Pong of migrant dinghies between Greek and Turkish waters, with Frontex crews on vessels or aircraft in observer status.

      Four officials with direct knowledge of Frontex operations said that agency officials have been discouraging crews from filing reports on pushback incidents, and, in some cases, have stopped initial alerts of violations from being filed as “serious incident reports,” at times after consulting with the Greek authorities.

      They all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were concerned about losing their jobs, or were not authorized to brief the press.

      The Frontex spokesman, Chris Borowski, said the agency took the reporting of violations very seriously. “Pushbacks are illegal under international law,” Mr. Borowski said.

      In the latest case to come to light, a Swedish Coast Guard crew on deployment under Frontex witnessed a pushback to Turkish waters of a boat full of migrants by the Greek authorities on Oct. 30 off the Greek island of Chios.

      The Swedish crew was later advised by a Frontex officer to not report it, documents reviewed by The Times show. The Swedish representative to the management board of Frontex described the incident, and the suppression of the attempt to report it, at a meeting on Nov. 10 — the first known case of an E.U. member state reporting active interference by Frontex officials.

      The Swedish government did not comment. A spokesman for Frontex said the agency wouldn’t comment because of an “ongoing procedure.”

      Frontex has been working in Greece for more than a decade, providing sea, land and aerial surveillance and rescue capabilities and deploying crews from other member states under its command.

      The details now emerging push the agency deeper into a governance crisis which began in October when a consortium of news organizations, including the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, reported a number of occasions when Frontex crews witnessed pushbacks in Greece.

      The European Commission, which is part of the Frontex oversight system but does not control the agency, pushed for a special inquiry into these allegations and, at an emergency agency board meeting on Nov. 10, asked its leadership to answer detailed questions in writing.

      The answers arrived with a four-day delay, just 15 hours before the start of another meeting to discuss the problems on Wednesday. Yet another emergency meeting has been called in December, mounting pressure on the agency.

      Frontex has promised internal investigations but also quickly dismissed allegations, saying for example, in a letter seen by The Times, that it would look into the Swedish case, but that it had so far found no evidence that it happened.

      How these investigations shake out will matter a great deal for the future of Frontex, which was once little more than a back-office operation in Warsaw but now finds itself on the front lines of the nettlesome issue of migration that has the potency to make or break governments.

      Apart from helping member states with asylum-seeker arrivals, Frontex’s role as an E.U. agency by law is to respect fundamental rights, and bring up human-rights standards across national E.U. border agencies, which often don’t have a strong culture of upholding them.

      But claims that Frontex does not take fundamental rights seriously enough are growing. This year, only one million euros in its budget of 460 million euros — about $548 million — was allocated to rights monitoring.

      The agency was supposed to hire 40 fundamental-rights officers by Dec. 5 but the jobs have not yet been advertised. The agency is currently hiring for their boss, after years of staffing issues around that position. A Frontex spokesman said the delays stemmed from the coronavirus pandemic.

      Documents seen by The Times laid out how in one episode the Greek authorities were consulted before a report was made, and were able to suppress it. On Aug. 10, a German crew deployed by Frontex reported that a Greek Coast Guard vessel “took up border control measures prohibiting the landing to Samos.”

      The expression refers to maneuvering and making waves around a dinghy to repel it. The event was not recorded as a “serious incident,” because, the document said, the Greek Coast Guard argued the activities “do not provide any ground” to initiate such a report.

      Another incident, which a Frontex aerial crew observed and reported in detail to its headquarters, took place on the evening of April 18 to 19 off the coast of Lesbos, and lasted more than five hours.

      A dinghy was detected by the Greek authorities and approximately 20 migrants were rescued and put on board a Greek Coast Guard vessel shortly after midnight, their empty dinghy towed by the Coast Guard toward the island.

      But instead of being taken to shore, at 2:45 a.m., the migrants were put back on their dinghy and tugged to Turkish waters by the Greek Coast Guard, the Frontex aerial crew reported.

      As events unfolded, the Greek command center twice asked the Frontex aircraft to change its flight path, directing it away from the incident.

      “At 03:21 Frontex Surveillance Aircraft communicates that the rubber boat has no engine and it is adrift. Greek assets are departing the area leaving the rubber boat adrift,” the document said.

      The internal Frontex report detailing this incident and categorizing it as a fundamental-rights violation was “dismissed,” the document shows.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/world/europe/frontex-migrants-pushback-greece.html?smid=tw-share

    • #Seehofer deckte offenbar griechische Verbrechen

      Griechische Grenzschützer setzen Flüchtlinge systematisch auf dem Meer aus. Ein internes Dokument legt nun nahe, dass Innenminister #Horst_Seehofer einen Rechtsbruch kaschierte. SPD-Vize Kühnert stellt ihm ein Ultimatum.

      Die Sprecherin von Bundesinnenminister Horst Seehofer war sichtlich nervös, als sie sich Ende November den Fragen der Journalisten stellen musste. Zwei Tage zuvor hatten der SPIEGEL und das ARD-Magazin »Report Mainz« berichtet, dass die Bundespolizei in der Ägäis in eine illegale Zurückweisung von Flüchtlingen verwickelt war. Wiederholt fragten die Journalisten nach. »Ich weiß nicht, wie Sie zu der Einschätzung kommen, dass es sich hierbei um einen illegalen Pushback gehandelt hat«, sagte die Sprecherin schließlich.

      Dabei lagen dem Bundesinnenministerium zu diesem Zeitpunkt längst Informationen vor, die genau darauf hindeuten.

      Im Auftrag der EU-Grenzschutzagentur Frontex patrouillierten die deutschen Einsatzkräfte am 10. August in der Ägäis, nur wenige Hundert Meter von der griechischen Insel Samos entfernt. Dabei entdeckten sie ein Schlauchboot mit 40 Flüchtlingen an Bord. Auftragsgemäß hielten sie es an, allerdings nahmen sie die Menschen auf dem völlig überfüllten Boot nicht an Bord. Stattdessen warteten sie mehr als eine halbe Stunde, bis die griechische Küstenwache das Schlauchboot übernahm.

      Wenig später fanden sich die Flüchtlinge plötzlich in türkischen Gewässern wieder. So beschreiben es interne Dokumente der EU-Grenzschutzagentur Frontex, die dem SPIEGEL vorliegen. Die türkische Küstenwache musste die 40 Migranten später retten. Fotos zeigen Männer, Frauen und kleine Kinder auf dem überfüllten Schlauchboot. Offensichtlich wurden die Menschen von den griechischen Grenzschützern illegal zurückgedrängt.

      Als die griechischen Beamten in den Hafen zurückkehrten, wunderten sich die deutschen Polizisten. Die Küstenwache hatte keine Migranten an Bord und auch kein Schlauchboot im Schlepptau. Die Deutschen meldeten im Anschluss zwar die Details des Einsatzes – aber keine mögliche Menschenrechtsverletzung.
      Was genau haben die Deutschen von diesem illegalen Pushback mitbekommen?

      Bis heute haben die Bundespolizei und das Innenministerium nicht auf die Fragen des SPIEGEL geantwortet. Dabei finden sich die Antworten auf diese Fragen seit Wochen im Intranet der Bundespolizei, also in einem nur für Mitarbeiter zugänglichen Netzwerk. Anhand der elf SPIEGEL-Fragen legte die Bundespolizei-Führung ihre Sicht der Dinge ausführlich dar – noch am Tag der Veröffentlichung des Berichts. Die Fragen waren also längst beantwortet, nur abgeschickt wurden sie nie. Das Innenministerium erklärt das inzwischen auf Anfrage mit einem »Büroversehen«.

      Die Ausführungen im Intranet der Bundespolizei sind politisch heikel. Auf den ersten Blick entlasten sie die deutschen Einsatzkräfte. Wörtlich heißt es, die Bundespolizisten hätten beobachtet, »dass durch die (…) griechischen Einsatzkräfte Migranten physisch an Bord genommen wurden.« Die deutschen Frontex-Beamten konnten also davon ausgehen, dass die Flüchtlinge zunächst in Sicherheit waren. Schließlich wurden sie vor ihren Augen auf ein Schiff der griechischen Küstenwache geholt und trieben nicht mehr in ihrem überfüllten Schlauchboot.

      Warum hat das Innenministerium dieses Detail trotzdem bis heute verschwiegen? Will man im Ministerium die Griechen nicht als Lügner entlarven? Das Flüchtlingsboot, so hatten die griechischen Behörden erklärt, sei beim Anblick der Küstenwache umgekehrt und zurück in türkische Gewässer gefahren.
      Beobachtungen der Deutschen entlarven die Ausrede der Griechen

      Die Beobachtungen der Bundespolizisten widersprechen dieser Darstellung, die Bundespolizei stellt das in ihrem Bericht selbst fest. Wenn die Geflüchteten bereits an Bord des Schiffes der griechischen Küstenwache waren, können sie unmöglich freiwillig auf ihrem Schlauchboot umgekehrt sein. Sollten die Aussagen der Deutschen zutreffen, und davon ist auszugehen, bleibt keine andere vernünftige Erklärung als ein illegaler Pushback der griechischen Küstenwache.

      Horst Seehofer muss sich deshalb die Frage gefallen lassen, warum sein Haus die Verbrechen der griechischen Behörden deckt. Statt aufzuklären, führt er die Öffentlichkeit offenbar in die Irre. So fügt Seehofer sich in das System des Schweigens.

      Seit Juni hat SPIEGEL in gemeinsamen Recherchen mit der Medienorganisation Lighthouse Reports und »Report Mainz« genau dokumentiert, wie die griechischen Pushbacks ablaufen: Die Küstenwache fängt die Migrantinnen und Migranten meist noch auf dem Wasser ab. Manchmal zerstört sie den Außenbordmotor der Schlauchboote, um diese manövrierunfähig zu machen. Dann werden die Schutzsuchenden mit gefährlichen Manövern Richtung Türkei zurückgedrängt. Die Menschen werden auf den Booten oder auf aufblasbaren Rettungsflößen mit Seilen aufs offene Meer gezogen, vom SPIEGEL ausgewertete Videos belegen das.

      Griechische Grenzschützer bedrohen die Geflüchteten mit Waffen, nicht selten fallen Schüsse. Bisweilen schleppen die Beamten sogar Menschen aufs Meer, die es schon auf die griechischen Inseln geschafft haben.

      Auch Frontex-Einheiten stoppen immer wieder Flüchtlingsboote und übergeben sie anschließend an die griechische Küstenwache. Seit Anfang März wird das so gehandhabt. Die Frontex-Einheiten, darunter deutsche Bundespolizisten, unterstehen in der Ägäis der griechischen Küstenwache. Sie werden so zu Gehilfen der Griechen, die bei ihren illegalen Praktiken nicht mal besonders verdeckt vorgehen.

      »Das Innenministerium scheint sich zum Komplizen der Griechen zu machen«, sagt der menschenrechtspolitische Sprecher der Sozialdemokraten, Frank Schwabe. »Dazu müssen sowohl Frontex als auch Innenminister Seehofer dem Bundestag Rede und Antwort stehen.«

      Das Innenministerium teilte auf Anfrage mit, dass eine abschließende Bewertung des Sachverhaltes aufgrund der vorliegenden Informationen nicht möglich sei. Die Bundespolizei habe sich jedenfalls nicht an illegalen Pushbacks beteiligt. Eine vollständige Aufklärung bleibe abzuwarten und Berichte von griechischen Behörden würden nicht kommentiert.

      Die griechischen Behörden bleiben bei ihrer Version der Ereignisse. Das für die Küstenwache zuständige Ministerium teilte mit, der Fahrer der Schlauchbootes sei in Richtung Türkei zurückgefahren, nachdem er die griechische Küstenwache erblickt habe.
      »Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass Seehofer die Regelverstöße der griechischen Küstenwache deckt, weil sie ihm politisch in den Kram passen«

      SPD-Vize Kevin Kühnert

      Doch in der Opposition und auch beim eigenen Koalitionspartner ist der Unmut groß. Selbst SPD-Vize Kevin Kühnert schaltet sich nun in die Debatte ein. Durch die schriftlich festgehaltenen Erkenntnisse der eigenen Beamten festige sich der Eindruck, dass es in der Ägäis in der Tat zu Pushbacks komme, sagt er. Deshalb müsse Seehofer nun politisch reagieren. »Frontex muss die mutmaßliche griechische Pushback-Praxis endlich effektiv verhindern und die Zugänge zum Asylverfahren sicherstellen«, so Kühnert. »Sollte dies durch die Bundesregierung kurzfristig nicht durchsetzbar sein, muss das deutsche Kontingent unverzüglich aus der Mission abgezogen werden.«

      Kühnert möchte nun von Seehofer »noch in diesem Jahr dargelegt bekommen, wie und bis wann er auf Frontex einwirken wolle, um die Zusammenarbeit mit der griechischen Küstenwache wieder auf eine rechtskonforme Grundlage zu stellen.« Mit seiner Salamitaktik bei der Preisgabe von Informationen werde der Innenminister auch der Fürsorgepflicht gegenüber seinen eigenen Beamten nicht gerecht, mahnt Kühnert. »Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass Seehofer die Regelverstöße der griechischen Küstenwache deckt, weil sie ihm politisch in den Kram passen. Alles daran wäre inakzeptabel.«

      Neben Seehofer gerät auch Frontex-Chef Fabrice Leggeri durch die Beobachtungen der deutschen Polizisten in Erklärungsnot. Bis heute beteuert Leggeri, dass sich seine Grenzschützer nicht an Pushbacks beteiligen oder von ihnen wissen. Daran zweifelt aber inzwischen selbst die EU-Kommission.

      Auf deren Drängen schilderte Leggeri schriftlich die Details des Vorfalls vom 10. August. In seinen Antworten verschwieg aber auch Leggeri, dass die griechische Küstenwache laut den Deutschen die Flüchtlinge bereits an Bord geholt hatten – obwohl er wohl davon hätte wissen müssen. Die Bundespolizei jedenfalls hat auch dieses Detail des Einsatzes nach eigener Aussage an Frontex gemeldet.

      Frontex teilte auf Anfrage mit, wegen der laufenden Untersuchung keine Angaben zum Vorfall machen zu können.

      Für Leggeri ist die Angelegenheit besonders misslich, weil sich in seinen Aussagen ein Muster erkennen lässt: Der Frontex-Direktor täuscht die Öffentlichkeit, um die Pushbacks zu vertuschen. Vor den EU-Parlamentariern verteidigte er sich unlängst mit einer Falschaussage, indem er behauptete, dass der SPIEGEL und seine Recherchepartner sich bei ihren Recherchen zu einem Pushback im April geirrt hätten. Am fraglichen Tag habe es gar keinen Frontex-Aufklärungsflug gegeben, sagte Leggeri. Keine zwei Tage später musste er einräumen, dass das nicht stimmte. Weitere Vorfälle, die Experten als klare Pushbacks werten, erwähnte Leggeri entweder gar nicht oder nur auf Nachfrage in internen Schreiben.
      EU-Kommission rechnet mit Leggeri ab

      Inzwischen wirft auch die EU-Kommission Leggeri »irreführende« Aussagen vor. Das geht aus einem Brief der Kommission an ihn hervor. In dem Streit geht es um die Einstellung von Grundrechtsbeobachtern. Eigentlich hätte Frontex bis zum 5. Dezember 40 Mitarbeiter einstellen müssen, die darauf achten soll, dass die Rechte von Migranten an Europas Grenzen gewahrt werden. Bis heute hat Leggeri allerdings nicht einen solchen Mitarbeiter eingestellt.

      Der Frontex-Direktor macht die Kommission für die Verzögerung verantwortlich, die wiederum gibt Leggeri die Schuld. Leggeris Äußerungen zu dem Thema würden die Kommission »bestürzen« und »beunruhigen« heißt es in dem Brief. Das Schreiben liegt dem SPIEGEL vor, es liest sich wie eine Kampfansage.

      Die Verzögerungen bei den Grundrechtsbeobachtern seien skandalös, sagt die Grünenbundestagsabgeordnete Luise Amtsberg. Die Sache zeige, dass die Grenzschutzagentur den Menschenrechtsschutz schlicht nicht ernst genug nehme. »Die Bundesregierung muss endlich klare Konsequenzen aus den völkerrechtswidrigen Handlungen im Rahmen von Frontex-Missionen ziehen.«

      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/frontex-skandal-horst-seehofer-deckte-offenbar-griechische-verbrechen-a-bd06

    • Push backs and violations of human rights at sea: a #timeline

      The following timeline provides a non-exhaustive compilation of main reports of push backs and other violations of human rights at the Greek-Turkish sea borders since March 2020, following Greece’s decision to impose a one-month suspension of its asylum procedure in response to declarations by Turkey that it would not prevent refugees from crossing its western borders. On 2 March, the Hellenic Armed Forces began live-fire military exercises along the Aegean, from Samothrace to Kastellorizo.

      Timeline dates refer to the date of publication of reports, separately indicating the date of alleged incidents, where available.

      This timeline solely purports to reproduce material made publicly available by media and civil society organisations and does not amount to an assessment by RSA or PRO ASYL of the allegations contained therein.

      https://rsaegean.org/en/push-backs-and-violations-of-human-rights-at-sea-a-timeline
      #chronologie

    • EU: Frontex director accused of misleading parliament over fundamental rights obligations

      Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri has been accused by a senior European Commission official of making statements “in a misleading manner” at a parliamentary hearing in December, when MEPs questioned him over the agency’s alleged role in pushbacks and the new fundamental rights monitoring framework included in 2019 legislation.

      Bang to rights

      In a letter obtained by Statewatch, Monique Pariat (the Director-General of the Commission’s migration and home affairs department), expresses “dismay” at Leggeri’s appearance before the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee (LIBE) on 1 December and rebukes, in no uncertain terms, the account he provided of the agency’s attempts to implement its new fundamental rights obligations.

      Those obligations include a fully functioning and independent fundamental rights office, an accessible complaints mechanism, and a credible serious incident reporting mechanism – the aim of which is to prevent, or at least ensure the reporting and investigation of, human rights abuses witnessed or committed by officials deployed on Frontex operations.

      A key role is foreseen in all this for the fundamental rights officer (FRO), who is supposed to head a team of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors – all of whom the agency was legally obliged to have recruited by 5 December 2020. However, it failed to do so.

      Blame game

      Leggeri told MEPs that although he personally prioritised the swift recruitment of fundamental rights staff, vacancy notices published by the agency in November 2019 were withdrawn on the request of the Commission, and subsequent delays in agreeing the seniority of the posts meant that vacancy notices were only published again in November 2020.

      Pariat does not dispute these points, but underlines that the Commission was obliged to request the withdrawal of the notices, because the Management Board had not approved them, as required by the 2019 Frontex Regulation. Without that approval, the letter says that “the publication of these vacancies was plain and simply unlawful” (emphasis in original).

      She adds that the Frontex Regulation requires the involvement of the FRO in the appointment of their deputy, but there was no such involvement prior to the 2019 vacancy notice publication. The Commission had to intervene to request removal of the vacancy notices, says Pariat, “to prevent serious irregularities which could jeopardise the well-functioning and the reputation of the Agency.”

      Bad reputation

      The agency’s reputation has nevertheless taken a battering in recent months. Frontex has faced numerous accusations that it either knew of or has been involved in pushbacks at Greece’s sea border with Turkey, leading the Socialists & Democrats – the second-largest group in the European Parliament – to call for Leggeri’s resignation. There are numerous other reports of similar violent incidents in the Balkans involving officials deployed on Frontex missions.

      The EU anti-fraud agency, OLAF, has also launched an investigation into the border agency, although the exact reasons for this remain unclear. OLAF’s remit allows it to carry out “administrative investigations for the purpose of fighting fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union.”

      Leggeri has said that the agency will be undertaking a thorough investigation into the allegations of pushbacks, although the working group set up to investigate the affair is made up representatives from the agency’s Management Board and does not include the Fundamental Rights Officer or the agency’s Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights.

      “Active resistance”

      A document cited by Greek newspaper Kathimerini suggests that fundamental rights are not one of Leggeri’s main interests. The document, provided to the paper by someone described as having “knowledge of the inner workings of Frontex,” says Leggeri told agency staff that “reporting pushbacks involving Frontex personnel is not a route to popularity or promotion,” and that the serous incident reporting (SIR) mechanism is “intentionally centralized to be slow, cumbersome and very discreet”.

      According to the paper, the document also says that Leggeri “actively resisted” hiring the 40 fundamental rights officers required by the Frontex Regulation, and told staff at the agency in early 2020 that “it is not a priority.”

      Pariat’s letter suggests that Leggeri himself delayed the procedure for recruiting new fundamental rights staff by five months, because of his “insistence on an arrangement which would not have been compatible with the EBCG [Frontex] Regulation”.

      There was a “surprising reluctance” from the agency to follow the Commission’s advice on implementing the new fundamental rights framework, says Pariat. She argues that “if the Agency had followed the Commission’s timely guidance and suggestions, the main milestones… could have been completed on time.”

      Even though the recruitment procedure is now going ahead, concerns remain. At the LIBE hearing in December, several MEPs questioned whether the staff grade applicable to the 40 posts will confer adequate authority and independence to the fundamental rights officers.

      At the time of publication, Frontex had not responded to a request for comment.

      Documentation

      - European Commission letter to Mr Leggeri, 18 December: Subject: Your letter of 4 December 2020 (ref: CAB/KARO/10563/2020) (pdf): https://www.statewatch.org/media/1708/eu-com-letter-to-frontex-18-12-20.pdf
      – Fabrice Leggeri, Answers to written questions following the LIBE Committee meeting 1 December (pdf) - annex to this letter (pdf): https://www.statewatch.org/media/1709/eu-frontex-written-questions-answers-libe-hearing-1-12-20.pdf

      https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/january/eu-frontex-director-accused-of-misleading-parliament-over-fundamental-ri

    • Refoulements et gestion contestée : la pression s’intensifie sur le patron de Frontex

      Fabrice Leggeri, directeur exécutif de l’agence européenne de protection des frontières, est sous la pression de la Commission et du Parlement.

      Ce n’est pas un appel à la démission de Fabrice Leggeri, directeur exécutif de Frontex, mais cela y ressemble fort. Rencontrant, lundi 18 janvier, plusieurs médias européens, dont Le Monde, Ylva Johansson, commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures et à la migration, a été interrogée sur un éventuel départ du patron français de ce qui est désormais l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes. « Je ne fais pas de commentaire là-dessus. Des procédures ont été lancées, elles ne sont pas terminées. Mais je pense qu’elles doivent l’être », indiquait la commissaire socialiste suédoise.

      Des propos prudents mais qui cachent mal le fait qu’entre la Commission et Frontex le torchon brûle. Pour preuve, une lettre envoyée au siège de l’agence en décembre 2020 par #Monique_Pariat, chef de la direction générale de la migration et des affaires intérieures à Bruxelles. Un long réquisitoire reprochant à M. Leggeri des retards, des carences dans la gestion et des « hésitations incompréhensibles » à suivre les instructions. Voire un #mensonge au sujet du recrutement des personnels qui devaient être chargés de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux au sein de l’Agence.

      Les « procédures » visant M. Leggeri et évoquées par Mme Johansson sont multiples. Et elles visent essentiellement la possible implication de Frontex dans des « pushbacks », des refoulements illégaux de migrants aux frontières de l’Union, avant qu’ils aient pu introduire d’éventuelles demandes d’asile. En octobre 2020, plusieurs médias évoquaient, témoignages et images à l’appui, six cas de refoulements en mer Egée. Avec, notamment, les manœuvres dangereuses d’un navire de Frontex, qui aurait pu entraîner le #naufrage d’une embarcation. La direction de l’Agence démentait à l’époque toute infraction.

      Constitution d’un groupe de travail

      L’Office de lutte antifraude de l’Union a lancé une enquête et, le 7 décembre 2020, les bureaux de M. Leggeri et de son directeur de cabinet ont été perquisitionnés. L’investigation porterait, aussi, sur des faits de #harcèlement et des erreurs de gestion.

      Plusieurs groupes politiques du Parlement européen ont, eux, transmis une longue liste de questions au directeur exécutif après qu’il a été entendu, le 1er décembre 2020, par l’Assemblée. M. Leggeri avait indiqué qu’une #enquête_interne n’avait pas prouvé l’implication de membres de Frontex dans des refoulements illégaux. Peu convaincus, les eurodéputés du groupe socialiste ont exigé sa #démission, d’autres groupes ont réclamé des explications complémentaires.

      Au sein de Frontex même, un #groupe_de_travail avait été constitué en novembre, sur insistance de la Commission. Son rapport devrait être examiné lors d’une réunion du conseil d’administration, mercredi 20 et jeudi 21 janvier. Ce conseil est composé de représentants des pays membres de l’Union et de deux membres de la Commission.

      L’un des principaux reproches adressés à M. Leggeri est qu’il aurait tergiversé pour embaucher la quarantaine de personnes qui, en théorie, auraient dû être à pied d’œuvre dès décembre 2020 pour veiller au respect des droits des migrants et demandeurs d’asile. Dans la lettre de Mme Pariat qu’il a reçue en décembre, le directeur se voit reprocher d’avoir agi « de manière trompeuse » en ne livrant pas les explications correctes aux parlementaires quant à l’absence de ces employés. Mme Johansson pense également que certains des propos qu’il avait tenus n’étaient « pas vrais ».

      Action « illégale »

      La commissaire suédoise n’a, jusqu’ici, pas officiellement retiré sa confiance au directeur. Elle endosse cependant les critiques qui lui sont adressées par sa direction générale, qui évoque encore une action « illégale » de M. Leggeri en 2019, avec la publication de deux vacances de postes dirigeants qui n’avaient pas été approuvées par le conseil d’administration.

      Au Parlement, où la plénière débattait, mardi, du pacte migratoire proposé récemment par la Commission, la tension monte également. Mme Johansson a insisté sur la nécessité pour les pays de l’Union, les candidats à l’adhésion et « les agences européennes aussi » d’adhérer pleinement au respect des #droits_fondamentaux. Et plusieurs députés ont à nouveau mis en cause Frontex, l’élue socialiste bulgare #Elena_Yoncheva jugeant qu’en matière de « pushbacks » l’agence fait désormais « partie du problème, pas de la solution ».

      Une situation embarrassante pour toute l’Union : dotée maintenant d’uniformes, d’armes et d’un budget passé au total à 5,6 milliards d’euros pour la période 2021-2027, l’agence des garde-frontières peut difficilement voir la #légitimité de son principal dirigeant remise en question au plus haut niveau. A ce stade, celui-ci n’a pas réagi officiellement aux accusations qui le visent. Il pourrait le faire prochainement, selon un membre de son entourage.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/01/20/refoulements-et-gestion-contestee-la-pression-s-intensifie-sur-le-patron-de-

    • Le garde-frontière Frontex en pleine tourmente

      Les refoulements aux frontières européennes fragilisent la position du directeur de Frontex, l’agence européenne de garde-frontières. La Commission reproche à Fabrice Leggeri d’avoir ralenti l’embauche d’officiers de contrôle des droits fondamentaux. Son agence est soumise à plusieurs #enquêtes, dont une de l’#office_européen_anti-fraude. Des députés demandent sa #démission.

      Bruxelles (Belgique).– Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur de Frontex, est cerné de toutes parts. Sa position, à la tête de l’agence européenne de garde-côtes et de garde-frontières, est fragilisée suite à de récents scandales concernant des refoulements de demandeurs d’asile vers la Turquie, auxquels aurait participé Frontex. Des députés appellent à sa démission. La médiatrice européenne, #Emily_O’Reilly, a ouvert une #enquête le 11 novembre dernier pour évaluer le fonctionnement du mécanisme de #plainte_interne à Frontex. Même l’office européen de lutte anti-fraude investigue et scrute la gestion de l’agence.

      Le dernier coup de boutoir vient de la #Commission_européenne. Dans une lettre du 18 décembre, la directrice générale chargée des migrations et des affaires intérieures, Monique Pariat, adressait des mots durs à Fabrice Leggeri au sujet d’irrégularités et de retards dans les procédures de recrutement d’un officier des droits fondamentaux, de son adjoint et de 40 contrôleurs des droits fondamentaux, qui devaient faire partie de l’agence le 5 décembre 2020 au plus tard et qui ne sont toujours pas embauchés : « C’est la responsabilité de la Commission […] d’intervenir pour empêcher que des irrégularités sérieuses viennent compromettre le bon fonctionnement et la réputation de l’agence. »

      La réputation de Frontex a pourtant déjà été écornée à de multiples reprises dans le passé, sans que l’exécutif bruxellois s’en émeuve. « Pendant longtemps la Commission a protégé Fabrice Leggeri, commente #Birgit_Sippel, eurodéputée allemande du groupe des socialistes et démocrates. Il semble que le vent tourne, notamment sous la pression du #Parlement_européen. »

      C’est le 23 octobre 2020 que le vent a tourné. Une série de médias européens, dont Der Spiegel et Bellingcat, publiaient alors une enquête fouillée suggérant que l’agence européenne avait, entre mars et août 2020, soit assisté à des refoulements de demandeurs d’asile en mer Égée par des garde-côtes grecs, sans les avoir rapportés, soit participé activement au renvoi de canots vers les côtes turques, alors que les refoulements sont strictement prohibés par le droit international. Le 8 juin, un navire de l’opération « #Poséidon » de Frontex, battant pavillon roumain, aurait même bloqué un canot de migrants avant de contribuer à le repousser.

      Fabrice Leggeri est venu s’expliquer devant le Parlement européen le 1er décembre. Selon lui, l’enquête interne menée par ses services concluait à « l’absence de preuves » de refoulement dans les cas mentionnés par la presse. Il insistait sur le fait que les activités de contrôle aux frontières avaient toujours lieu « à la demande et sous le commandement des autorités nationales », Frontex intervenant en coordination des opérations maritimes, en mobilisant des avions, des navires et des garde-frontières originaires des 27 États membres.

      Ces déclarations élusives ont hérissé de nombreux députés européens. « La façon dont il a répondu à nos questions montre que Fabrice Leggeri ne prend pas vraiment au sérieux ces allégations. Frontex a besoin de changements structurels, et je pense qu’il n’est pas la bonne personne pour les mener », avance Tineke Strik, eurodéputée néerlandaise des Verts.

      De la #gauche_unitaire_européenne (#GUE) au groupe centriste de #Renew, les critiques pleuvent à l’encontre de Fabrice Leggeri, mais l’attitude à adopter crée des divisions. La centriste néerlandaise, #Sophie_In’t_Veld, du groupe Renew, milite pour qu’une commission d’enquête parlementaire soit mise sur pied, « car on parle d’actes criminels ». Avant de réclamer la démission du directeur – qui ne peut être décidée que par le conseil d’administration de Frontex composé des États membres et de la Commission – la députée pense « qu’il faut d’abord faire toute la lumière sur les faits ».

      Au sein du groupe des socialistes et démocrates, des députés veulent aller plus vite. « Pourquoi perdre un an avec une #commission_d’enquête ?, s’interroge #Birgit_Sippel. Les rapports décrivant les violations des droits humains aux frontières sont là. Pour l’instant, Fabrice Leggeri se cache et échappe à ses responsabilités. » Des députés de la GUE comme des #Verts réclament à la fois une commission d’enquête et la #démission du directeur. Quant à la droite, le Parti populaire européen n’a pas encore de position sur ces thèmes, mais voit d’un mauvais œil cette idée de commission d’enquête.

      Le mastodonte sans contrôle

      Pour Yves Pascouau, directeur du programme Europe à l’association Res-Publica, par ailleurs spécialiste des questions migratoires européenne (et élu de la majorité nantaise), « l’augmentation des moyens et des pouvoirs de Frontex ne peut pas se faire sans une augmentation de ses responsabilités ».

      Frontex, au fil des ans, est devenu un mastodonte. En 2012, son budget était de 89,5 millions d’euros. Il est en 2020 de 460 millions. 5,6 milliards d’euros ont été dégagés pour la période 2021-2027. Il s’agit de la plus grosse agence de l’UE qui sera dotée, d’ici 2027, de 10 000 garde-côtes véritablement européens, avec leurs propres uniformes. « Cela permettra d’augmenter la transparence et la responsabilité de Frontex », veut croire une source européenne.

      Aujourd’hui, Frontex se déploie sous commandement des autorités nationales. Mais les agents qui agissent en son nom ne sont pas exempts de responsabilités. Ils ont l’obligation d’envoyer un rapport aux dirigeants de Frontex à chaque incident sérieux auquel ils assistent, y compris lorsque des violations des droits humains sont observées.

      Le Forum consultatif de Frontex, qui réunit des institutions européennes, des organisations internationales et ONG, s’interroge inlassablement sur « l’effectivité » de ce système. En 2018, seuls 3 incidents sérieux relatifs à des violations de droits humains furent comptabilisés par l’agence, et 9 en 2019, sans que l’on sache quel a été le suivi de ces dossiers.

      Quant à l’embauche des milliers de garde-frontières, elle doit être contrebalancée par davantage de contrôles des activités de Frontex. L’officier des droits fondamentaux, son adjoint et sa petite équipe d’au minimum 40 contrôleurs sont considérés comme la clef de voûte de ce système de surveillance du respect des #droits_humains.

      Dans la lettre adressée à Fabrice Leggeri, Monique Pariat regrette qu’au 18 décembre, aucun de ces recrutements n’ait été effectué. Elle pointe la « réticence surprenante de Frontex » à suivre les lignes directrices de la Commission, « ce qui a encore davantage entravé et retardé cet important processus ». La directrice générale dénonce encore la démarche « illégale » du directeur général qui avait publié, en 2019, une première annonce pour le poste d’officier des droits fondamentaux, sans l’accord du conseil d’administration de Frontex qui sera pourtant le supérieur hiérarchique direct de ce futur employé.

      Elle l’accuse encore d’avoir présenté les faits aux eurodéputés « de manière trompeuse ». L’attaque est frontale. Au-delà de l’enjeu institutionnel, Giorgos Kosmopoulos, du bureau européen d’Amnesty International, estime que « l’embauche de contrôleurs des droits fondamentaux n’est pas une mauvaise chose à condition qu’ils aient véritablement les moyens de mener des enquêtes, d’aller sur le terrain ». Et sur le terrain, justement, les refoulements aux frontières de l’Europe sont documentés et très nombreux. En #Grèce, en #Croatie, en #Hongrie.

      En mars 2020, le comité européen pour la prévention de la torture rapportait des allégations « crédibles et consistantes » de refoulements et détentions arbitraires, souvent accompagnées de violences, à la frontière gréco-turque. « On ne parle pas de cas isolés, ajoute Giorgos Kosmopoulos. La pratique est si répandue et généralisée qu’il est impossible que Frontex ne soit pas au courant, vu son implication sur le terrain. »

      Le directeur de Frontex, s’il estime qu’il existe « des violations graves […] des droits fondamentaux » doit mettre un terme à l’activité litigieuse à laquelle participe son agence. « Le directeur doit vérifier la situation sur le terrain et le cas échéant il doit retirer ses équipes pour qu’elles ne soient pas liées à des violations de droits humains, mais ce n’est jamais arrivé », conclut Giorgos Kosmopoulos.

      Dans ce contexte, Tineke Strik pense qu’une démission de Fabrice Leggeri, certes bienvenue, « ne résoudra pas tout. Les problèmes sont structurels. Il faudra lancer une enquête approfondie sur le fonctionnement de Frontex ».

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/210121/le-garde-frontiere-frontex-en-pleine-tourmente?onglet=full

    • Validating Border Violence on the Aegean: Frontex’s Internal Records

      The Aegean Sea, separating Turkey from Greece’s ‘hotspot’ islands, is a site of longstanding and increasingly visible border violence: the systematic use of inflatable life rafts by the Hellenic Coast Guard to push people back to Turkey has been widely documented since March last year. This maritime borderzone also stages the operational theatre of Frontex Joint Operation Poseidon, under which patrol boats, helicopters and surveillance planes have been deployed to patrol the extensive breadth of water.

      Frontex repeatedly denied any involvement in these pushbacks (see here and here), stressing its commitment to the protection, promotion and fulfilment of fundamental rights. This ‘modus operandi’ in which fundamental rights become a rhetorical defence could no longer hold after investigative reporters showed visual evidence of Frontex’s complicit role in pushbacks, prompting further media scrutiny and pressure by the European Parliament and Commission.

      In November, Efsyn, a Greek media outlet, published an eighteen-page long Frontex internal document addressed to the agency’s Management Board. The document aimed at answering questions by Member States and the Commission about the on-going pushbacks in the Aegean. The document, which fuelled Frontex’s recent internal inquiry, lists a series of so-called ‘incidents’ and, at times, offers detailed accounts of the previously denied pushbacks. However, these were not recorded as such.

      A closer look at the document reveals numerous ‘#JORA_incidents’ classified as ‘prevention of departure’, as this transcript from August 19, 2020, illustrates:

      frontex

      The #Joint_Operations_Reporting_Application (#JORA) is the main information system that collects and stores all ‘border related incidents’ from Frontex joint operations. Such incidents range from Search and Rescue (SAR) operations, interceptions, Serious Incident Reports to, as the one above, so-called preventions of departure. The leaked document contains twenty of the latter, all following a similar pattern: Firstly, the location of the rubber boat is recorded in Turkish territorial waters; second, Frontex assets are “excused from the scene” after detection; and, finally, a rehearsed ending: the boat “altered course on her own initiative/will and headed towards the Turkish coasts” or, alternately, the Turkish Coast Guard “took over responsibility”.

      Importantly, these JORA incidents coexist with the regular documenting of border violence. Descriptions of boats of asylum-seekers returning to Turkey of their own volition jar with regular testimonies describing the coercive methods employed to push them back. Alarm Phone, Aegean Boat Report and Border Violence Monitoring Network document human rights violations occurring at the same border, on the same dates and, often, at the same time as the JORA incidents.

      On the same day as the JORA incident above:

      Logging the border

      JORA incidents, together with information collected via Eurosur, form the backbone of Europe’s external borders and migration situational picture, Frontex’s narrative of the border. Yet, what is and is not accounted for in JORA and how, has not received much attention. Contrary to the few Serious Incident Reports related to violations of fundamental rights, which are dealt with by the Fundamental Rights Officer and presented to the Management Board, other incidents recorded in JORA don’t reach the public domain. Once inserted and validated, they become a dot on a map at the Frontex Situation Centre in Warsaw. They are devised to feed into risk analyses, maps and weekly analytical overviews.

      This ‘business-as-usual’ mode of reporting is mostly done by a few officers from the host Member State— in Greece, by the Hellenic Coast Guard and Police—who insert incidents into a standardised template through a set of rigid, mandatory fields. Reporting is not done by the officers on the patrol boats but mostly those who sit at coordination centres. Once inserted in the system, incidents are sent to the International Coordination Centre and the Frontex Situation Centre where they are cross-checked with reports from both Hellenic Coast Guard and Frontex deployed officers for validation. This validation process does not statically move in one direction; incidents can go back and forth in the validation chain. The final validation is done by a “specialized team of experts” at Frontex headquarters as the leaked document explains. Yet, incidents can be re-initiated and modified even after finalisation (see work by Pollozek).

      The design of the system allows for the rehearsed recording of formulaic bordering practices that, if closely examined, resemble its coexistent violent forms. Shading into the routine, the JORA records circulate regularly from the islands to Piraeus and Warsaw. While the full JORA archive is inaccessible to the public, the reviewed incidents give us insight into how a particular doctrine of border enforcement is being sustained by the agency and to what effects.

      Normalising violence, eroding rights

      The effects of these records arguably extend beyond the tactical level of border policing. Through their production, a narrative arc is formed by the recorded incidents, generating a specific mode of understanding. Data must be made intelligible to the JORA system and officials along the chain before it can be validated. As a result, even acts of violence such as pushbacks can get translated into mundane logs and thus, brought within the remit of everyday border enforcement and legality.

      The leaked document asserts that the “the notion of ‘prevention of departure”, according to which these ‘incidents’ are classified, should be interpreted “in conjunction with the provisions of Regulation 656/2014, in particular Articles 6 and 7”. While the precise legal meaning of this category in this context remains unclear, its ramifications for the right to leave a country are concerning.

      Regulation 656/2014 indeed provides legal basis (in certain factual circumstances) for the interception of boats carrying asylum-seekers. Yet, it clearly stipulates that the actions that official entities may lawfully take to enforce the border must be compliant with their obligations under EU and international law, including, inter alia, international human rights and refugee law. Moreover, it states: “This Regulation should not affect the responsibilities of search and rescue authorities, including for ensuring that coordination and cooperation is conducted in such a way that the persons rescued can be delivered to a place of safety.”

      The records, however, present an account of border enforcement that exists in isolation from human rights and humanitarian commitments. The dangerous conditions in which border enforcement takes place and the vulnerability of asylum seekers to these conditions are rendered irrelevant and thereby, banalised. Rubber boats carrying illegalized migrants are generally considered seaworthy, not recognised as in distress, regardless of how many people they carry or the fluctuating weather conditions in the Aegean. In none of the incidents contained in the leaked document was a SAR triggered by the Hellenic Coast Guard or Frontex. In this sense, JORA acts as a mediator that transforms, translates, distorts and modifies the meaning of these ‘incidents’. Through the designation of bureaucratic categories (e.g. prevention of departure), JORA codifies and transforms situations that should trigger humanitarian and human rights obligations into legitimate practices of border control. In the process, the duty to render assistance at sea is distorted, and the obligation to facilitate access to asylum is obscured.

      In the context of on-going internal discussions about the legality of interceptions at sea, Frontex’s internal records reveal the practices deemed acceptable by the agency and their interpretation of international legal obligations. The records provide insight into a vision of border enforcement, crystallised at the boundaries of the global north, that perpetuates the violent securitisation of borders to the detriment of human mobility, dignity and safety. They carve out a space where border control activities are shielded from scrutiny, erasing human rights from the operational script.

      Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.

      https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2021/01/validating-border

    • Five migrant pushback claims under scrutiny

      The board of directors of the European border agency Frontex, which met on Wednesday and Thursday, has decided to further investigate five of 13 reported cases of illegal migrants pushbacks last year, with the alleged help of Frontex guards, from Greece into Turkish territorial waters in the eastern Aegean.

      The board deemed that Frontex did not provide the necessary information and clarifications for the five cases under investigation.

      In view of this, the team investigating the claims has been given additional time to complete its work and present its final conclusions to a new extraordinary board meeting scheduled for February 26.

      With regard to the other eight cases, the board said that there is no evidence to confirm any violations. It also accepted that some of these incidents unfolded in Turkish territorial waters, and in others the migrant boats turned back on their own accord.

      https://www.ekathimerini.com/261560/article/ekathimerini/news/five-migrant-pushback-claims-under-scrutiny

    • L’agence européenne Frontex fragilisée par les accusations d’expulsions illégales

      L’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE, qui a annoncé qu’elle suspendait ses opérations en Hongrie, est accusée d’avoir participé au « pushback », qui consiste à repousser les migrants sans leur laisser la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile.
      Accusations d’implication dans des « pushbacks » – des refoulements illégaux de migrants et demandeurs d’asile aux frontières –, enquêtes de l’Office de lutte antifraude de l’Union européenne (UE) et de la Commission de Bruxelles, mise en cause de son directeur, Fabrice Leggeri : l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, Frontex, chargée de surveiller les frontières extérieures de l’UE, traverse de grosses turbulences. Mercredi 27 janvier, elle a même été contrainte d’annoncer qu’elle allait arrêter ses opérations en Hongrie, une première dans l’histoire de cette institution, fondée en 2004.
      « Nos efforts communs pour protéger les frontières extérieures ne peuvent réussir que si nous veillons à ce que notre coopération et nos activités soient pleinement conformes aux lois de l’UE », a expliqué un porte-parole, en critiquant implicitement les pratiques illégales de la police hongroise, auxquelles l’agence européenne participait pourtant depuis la crise des réfugiés de 2015.
      En cause, la pratique du « pushback », systématisée par le premier ministre ultranationaliste, Viktor Orban, et développée ailleurs dans l’Union. Le fait de repousser les migrants arrivés sur le sol européen sans leur laisser la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile n’a pas été partout aussi clairement assumé qu’en Hongrie, mais la Grèce, la Croatie, l’Italie ou la Slovénie, notamment, ont été mises an cause pour s’être livrées, elles aussi, à cette pratique illégale. Un « Livre noir », épais de 1 500 pages et présenté récemment par un réseau d’ONG, a recensé pas moins de 900 cas de ce type, concernant près de 13 000 personnes.
      Expulsions inhumaines
      Depuis une loi adoptée en 2016, la Hongrie considère, elle, que tous les migrants arrivant sur son sol peuvent être immédiatement renvoyés vers la Serbie voisine. Lorsqu’ils sont arrêtés, après avoir réussi à franchir la clôture que M. Orban a fait construire tout le long de la frontière, ou même à Budapest, les migrants se voient systématiquement refuser de déposer une demande d’asile et sont expulsés sans autre forme de procès, dans des conditions parfois inhumaines.
      Présents à la frontière hongroise depuis 2015, les agents de Frontex ont participé à cette politique, malgré les critiques des organisations non gouvernementales. « La Hongrie est le seul pays à avoir légalisé les “pushbacks” et à les pratiquer aussi ouvertement. La police hongroise publie même des chiffres tous les jours sur le nombre de personnes renvoyées en Serbie », dénonce Andras Lederer, du Comité Helsinki hongrois, une ONG spécialisée dans l’aide aux migrants. Il estime que la Hongrie a pratiqué 50 000 refoulements depuis 2016. A l’issue d’une longue bataille juridique, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a estimé, le 17 décembre 2020, que les pratiques hongroises enfreignent les directives régissant le droit d’asile.
      Malgré cet arrêt, le gouvernement de Budapest a refusé de modifier sa législation et a continué ces pratiques. « La Hongrie ne va pas céder devant la pression des forces pro-immigration », affirmait encore le porte-parole du gouvernement, Zoltan Kovacs, jeudi 28 janvier. « Bruxelles veut nous prendre le peu d’aide qu’on avait », a-t-il ajouté en réaction au retrait de Frontex, devenu inéluctable après l’arrêt de la Cour de Luxembourg. Pour M. Lederer, ce retrait est en revanche « bienvenu » : « La Hongrie ne pourra plus se cacher derrière la présence de Frontex pour continuer cette pratique. »
      Violences aux frontières de l’Union
      Avec un contingent censé atteindre 10 000 hommes, un budget pluriannuel passé à 5,6 milliards d’euros et son rôle de gardienne stricte des frontières, en association avec les forces nationales, l’agence dirigée par M. Leggeri est l’une des pièces essentielles de la politique migratoire de l’UE et du « pacte » proposé en 2020 pour la Commission. Sa mise en cause, alors même qu’elle est loin de tourner à plein régime, est de mauvais augure.
      Jeudi 28 janvier, alors que les vingt-sept ministres de l’intérieur, réunis en visioconférence, évoquaient – en présence du directeur de Frontex – le dossier de la migration, l’Agence des Nations unies pour les réfugiés évoquait un droit d’asile « menacé » en Europe et disait recevoir « de nombreux rapports » sur les violences exercées aux frontières de l’Union.
      D’où l’attention toute particulière que porte la commissaire aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, au dossier des « pushbacks ». La responsable suédoise se satisfait-elle des explications de la direction de Frontex, dont le conseil d’administration affirmait, le 21 janvier, qu’il n’avait pas trouvé de preuves de violation des droits de l’homme dans les cas qu’il a examinés ? « Sur la base des informations fournies », il n’aurait « pu établir de preuves ». Il a toutefois précisé que ses conclusions ne concernaient que certains incidents en Grèce et que des clarifications étaient nécessaires. Cinq cas problématiques de possibles refoulements impliquant Frontex sont encore examinés.
      Jeudi, devant les ministres, Mme Johansson a réclamé « toutes les analyses nécessaires » pour, dit-elle, rétablir la confiance dans l’agence. Elle a aussi évoqué un projet de réforme, incluant la nomination de trois sous-directeurs et la mise en place – enfin – d’un système de surveillance des droits humains.
      Le débat « recule »
      Au-delà du sort de Frontex, la question est de savoir si une définition d’une véritable politique migratoire européenne, avec une refonte des règles de l’asile et une solidarité accrue entre les pays, a une chance de se réaliser. Confirmant que le débat sur le « pacte » élaboré par la Commission « n’a pas beaucoup avancé », le secrétaire d’Etat belge à la migration, Sammy Mahdi, déclarait, jeudi, au quotidien La Libre Belgique qu’il fallait le rendre « rationnel ». Pour sortir les discussions de l’ornière, pour vérifier que la proposition de la Commission est opérationnelle et, enfin, pour que chacun annonce vraiment ses intentions, M. Mahdi propose « une simulation » : sur la base des chiffres de l’année 2019, chaque pays préciserait ce qu’il pourrait accomplir concernant l’accueil, la solidarité, le financement des infrastructures d’accueil aux frontières, etc.
      Un communiqué du secrétaire d’Etat évoquait une possible évolution de la Hongrie et de ses partenaires du groupe de Visegrad, à condition que soit satisfaite leur revendication (très floue) d’une solidarité « flexible ». Un participant à la réunion de jeudi faisait preuve de moins de conviction : « Faire avancer le débat ? Mais il recule ! » Vétéran des conseils européens sur la migration, le ministre luxembourgeois Jean Asselborn n’est pas loin de confirmer : « Nous sommes sans doute tous d’accord sur les contrôles aux frontières extérieures ou sur les retours. Mais pas sur la manière de respecter les droits humains des demandeurs d’asile, sur les relocalisations obligatoires ou sur l’impératif de solidarité » entre les pays européens. Les Etats prêts à respecter ces principes se compteraient, en effet, désormais sur les doigts d’une main.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/01/29/l-agence-europeenne-frontex-fragilisee-par-les-accusations-d-expulsions-ille

    • Refoulement de migrants : « Frontex se retranche toujours derrière ses États hôtes » (Migreurop)

      L’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE, a annoncé qu’elle suspendait ses opérations en Hongrie après une décision de la Cour de justice européenne critiquant le système d’asile de ce pays. L’Office européen de lutte antifraude enquête de son côté sur la gouvernance de l’agence par son directeur exécutif, Fabrice Leggeri dont plusieurs eurodéputés demandent la démission. Frontex a-t-elle participé à des opérations de « pushback », initiées par la Hongrie, qui consistent à repousser des migrants arrivés sur le sol européen sans leur laisser la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile ? Le décryptage de Brijitte Espuche, co-coordinatrice du réseau Migreurop.

      https://www.rfi.fr/fr/podcasts/invit%C3%A9-international/20210129-refoulement-de-migrants-frontex-se-retranche-toujours-derri%C3%A8re-ses

    • Frontex: Management Board pushes back against secrecy proposals in preliminary report

      Statewatch is publishing the preliminary report of the working group set up by the agency’s Management Board following allegations of involvement in pushbacks from Turkey to Greece. Amongst other things, the report indicates that Frontex has proposed labelling Serious Incident Reports as EU Classified Information, which would reduce transparency and, in turn, accountability.

      https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/february/frontex-management-board-pushes-back-against-secrecy-proposals-in-prelim

    • Scandals Plunge Europe’s Border Agency into Turmoil

      Accusations of workplace harassment, mismanagement and financial irregularities have led to chaos at Europe’s border agency. The allegations weigh heavily on Frontex head Fabrice Leggeri.

      The men and women who are part of Europe’s new elite border force meet every morning at 9 a.m. for a video conference that is viewed on screens in countries like Greece, Croatia, Bulgaria and Albania. The Frontex officials usually discuss migration movements and human trafficking, But since the beginning of January, the internal meetings have focused primarily on low morale within the team.

      "Do something at last, or soon no one will work here anymore,” one border guard warned in one of the calls. The policemen and women who regularly complain about their woes are the European Union’s first dedicated border guards. They’re part of Frontex’s standing corps.

      For months now, Frontex, the EU’s border protection agency, and its head Fabrice Leggeri, have been embroiled in a series of scandals. Frontex has been accused of being involved in illegal repatriations of refugees at Europe’s external borders, workplace harassment and a possible case of fraud linked to the agency. Now the crisis has also reached the standing corps, the border management agency’s prestige project.

      Frontex plans to deploy up to 10,000 border guards to the EU’s external borders in the coming years. The civil servants were promised brand new equipment and EU jobs with lavish salaries and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen personally pushed for the creation of the standing corps. The stars of the EU flag sparkle on the sleeves of the new dark blue uniforms worn by the reserves.

      The job may sound glamorous on paper, but it is anything but in the countries where the reserve guards have been deployed, like Greece, Croatia and Albania. Several officers have told DER SPIEGEL of a shortage of agency vehicles, such that expensive SUVs must be rented instead — with officers allegedly even having to pay for gas themselves in some cases. They claim that expenses weren’t reimbursed for bureaucratic reasons, and that parts of the new uniforms were missing and had to be bought by the border guards themselves.

      The officers should be out hunting down criminals and catching smugglers, but Category 1 officers, who are directly employed by Frontex, so far haven’t been allowed to carry weapons because the agency failed to provide the legal basis for doing so in time. The result is that the border guards, supposedly members of an elite European force, have to be escorted on every one of their patrols by national security forces.

      When contacted by DER SPIEGEL, Frontex also said that the pandemic has created additional challenges for deploying the force, but things are back on track again. Yet the agency’s own officers don’t see it that way. It’s a "Potemkin reserve,” scoffs one. "It’s not worth it,” says another officer, who is thinking about quitting.

      The establishment of the standing corps is one of the EU’s most important migration policy projects. The purpose is to control irregular immigration. But now the European Commission and the member states must stand by and watch as it becomes the focus of ridicule.

      The fiasco over the standing corps has become emblematic of an agency that has been falling short of public expectations for years, and of an agency head who is accumulating more and more power but doesn’t seem to know how to use it correctly.

      Under Leggeri, Frontex has stumbled from one scandal to the next. Last autumn, DER SPIEGEL, together with international media partners, first reported that Frontex forces in the Aegean Sea were involved in illegal repatriations of refugees, which are called pushbacks. The Frontex Management Board is investigating the allegations and the EU Ombudsman has opened an inquiry. Leggeri himself is apparently obstructing the investigations.

      In January, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) announced it had launched an investigation into Frontex. Leggeri claims that the investigators are looking into the pushback reports and that he cannot provide any further comment. But DER SPIEGEL has found in its reporting that the accusations go much further. The investigation involves a possible case of fraud involving a service provider, allegations of workplace harassment and whether information was withheld from the agency’s fundamental rights officer, whose job is to monitor Frontex’s adherence to basic human rights laid out in EU charters, conventions and international law. Internal documents suggest that Leggeri’s entire leadership style is under scrutiny.

      What happened? How could the authority charged with protecting the EU’s external borders descend into such chaos? And what does it all mean for the EU’s migration policy?

      DER SPIEGEL, the media organization Lighthouse Reports and the French newspaper Libération interviewed nearly a dozen current and former Frontex officials in the reporting of this story. Most insisted that their names not be mentioned in the story for fear that they could lose their jobs. Leggeri, for his part, rejected an interview request.

      When combined with internal documents that DER SPIEGEL and its partners were able to view, the insiders’ reports paint a picture of an agency in turmoil.

      France Télécom: How Leggeri seized power at Frontex

      The headquarters of Frontex are located in an office complex in Warsaw’s Wola district, not far from the city center. For years, only a few officials worked here compiling reports on migration routes. Actual border guards were borrowed from national police forces.

      But the agency has grown from a budget of just over 6 million euros in 2005 to 460 million euros in 2020. By 2027, Europe’s taxpayers will have provided 5.6 billion euros in funding to the agency.

      Frontex now has its own border guards, called the standing corps, in addition to aircraft and drones that will soon be complemented by unmanned airships that will provide surveillance as they circle over the Aegean Sea. Frontex’s rise has had a lot to do with Leggeri, the man who has done more than anyone else to shape the agency.

      Leggeri, 52, was born in Mulhouse, in France’s Alsace region, and speaks fluent German. He studied at the École Nationale d’Administration in Strasbourg, a university that has long produced the French elite. Starting in 2013, he worked at the Interior Ministry in Paris in the department for irregular immigration. At the time, the government advocated for Frontex’s expansion, and two years later, Leggeri was named head of the agency.

      Colleagues describe Leggeri as a technocrat. At a Christmas party once, the team gathered around and he began talking with great pathos about the achievements of the "Frontex family.” But Leggeri was reading from his notepad. "It seemed like the whole things was out of his league,” recalled one audience member.

      During the course of Frontex’s expansion, Leggeri tailored the agency to precisely fit his needs. He expanded his cabinet, filling many important posts with fellow French compatriots.

      Frontex workers say Leggeri is on rarely seen in the hallways, and that all important decisions are made by a small inner circle. They describe him as being a control freak, with some former staffers even going so far as to call him a "dictator.” Leggeri "runs the agency like it’s a sub-prefecture,” says someone who has worked with him for a long time. "You may be able to run a French ministry that way, but not an international organization.”

      Frontex staffers have taken to calling Leggeri’s cabinet "France Télécom” when the bosses aren’t around. It’s a reference to the scandal at the French telecommunications authority, which involved systematic bullying and harassment so bad that it drove a number of employees to commit suicide.

      The resentment felt by many Frontex staffers is largely directed at one of Leggeri’s closest confidants: Thibauld de La Haye Jousselin. The Frenchman comes from an aristocratic family from southern France. He once worked for Bernard Carayon, a member of the French parliament, who used to be part of a far-right student union. De La Haye Jousselin is a reserve officer in the French army and has a thing for the military and uniforms. “De La Haye Jousselin is clearly on the right politically,” says someone who has known him for years. Now, he serves Leggeri as the head of his cabinet.

      Insiders say that de La Haye Jousselin leads with an iron fist, and that he is quick to lose his temper. Employees claim he insults people and engages in disrespectful behavior. The agency stated that Frontex has not received any official complaints about de La Haye Jousselin and also claimed that no cabinet member has been hired solely on the basis of their nationality. De La Haye Jousselin dismissed the accusations as "false and baseless.”

      But the behavior of Leggeri and his cabinet chief has consequences. Dissent seems to be frowned upon. And this is likely one of the reasons internal control mechanisms at the agency are becoming less effective.

      Inmaculada Arnáez has more than 20 years of experience in human rights issues. The Spanish lawyer has worked for the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and she has been with Frontex since 2012. As the fundamental rights officer, she is supposed to operate independently of the executive director in her job as the agency’s internal watchdog. But when Leggeri took the helm in 2015, she quickly became aware of how little concern the new leader apparently had for human rights.

      Former Frontex employees report that Arnáez was left out in the cold. "We felt like Leggeri just bypassed her.” They claim that human rights had never been his priority.

      The final break between Leggeri and Arnáez came when the European Parliament granted the fundamental rights commissioner more powers in 2019. Arnáez was to be assisted by 40 human rights observers, which would have enabled her office to conduct its own investigations at Europe’s external borders. Apparently that was unthinkable for Leggeri.

      On Nov. 19, 2019, just as Arnáez was returning from an extended illness, the Frontex chief publicly advertised her position. In doing so, Leggeri had also bypassed the Frontex Management Board, since such a job posting requires the board’s approval. He had informed Arnáez only a short time before. In a written assessment obtained by DER SPIEGEL, the European Commission states that Leggeri’s move had been "plain and simply unlawful” and "could be considered as an attempt to discredit or weaken” Arnáez.

      The Commission forced Leggeri to withdraw the job posting. But the Frontex chief didn’t give up. He claimed Arnáez had to be replaced because she doesn’t have enough management experience to lead 40 employees.

      It seems likely, though, that the Frontex chief was mainly bothered by Arnáez because of her advocacy for human rights. Arnáez has repeatedly warned Leggeri against breaking the law. Colleagues say that she believed in the power of her reports. She regularly informed Leggeri about human rights violations in the Aegean Sea and recommended that he abandon the mission in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán legalized pushbacks in 2016.

      Leggeri ignored the fundamental rights officer’s reports and continued the operation in the Aegean Sea. He only withdrew his officers from Hungary a few weeks ago after a ruling by the European Court of Justice forced him to do so. When contacted for comment, Leggeri stated that he had always valued working together with Arnáez. He added that management experience is needed in the post because of the sharp increase in the budget.

      Leggeri still hasn’t hired the 40 human rights monitors to this day. When grilled by the European Parliament, Leggeri blamed the European Commission for the delays. European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson, who is responsible for the portfolio that includes Frontex, then accused him of having misled parliament.

      Arnáez has been on medical leave again since last March. The Frontex Management Board replaced her on an interim basis with Annegret Kohler, a German national who had previously worked in Leggeri’s cabinet. "It’s a clear conflict of interest,” says a Frontex official.
      The Pushback Affair: How Frontex Covered Up Human Rights Violations

      The walls of the Frontex Situation Centre are covered in monitors, with surveillance planes and satellites transmitting real-time images from border regions. From their desks, Frontex officers can closely monitor events taking place on the edges of Europe. “You can see how many people are sitting in a refugee boat,” says someone who knows the room well.

      A collection of images that appeared on screens here on the night of April 18-19, 2020, continue to occupy members of European Parliament until today. They come from a Frontex surveillance plane flying over the Aegean, according to several internal Frontex reports that DER SPIEGEL has obtained.

      Shortly before midnight, Greek border patrol officers intercepted a rubber dinghy just north of the island of Lesbos and transferred the 20 to 30 refugees onboard their ship. According to prevailing law, they should have then brought the asylum-seekers to Lesbos, where they could apply for asylum. Instead, though, they put the refugees back into the dinghy and then towed them back toward Turkey.

      Greek officials in the coordination center in Piraeus ordered the Frontex pilots to change course away from the dinghy. The Frontex team leader asked if there was a particular reason for the change in course. “Negative,” came the response from the Greeks.

      At 3:15 a.m., the Frontex plane began running low on fuel. The pilot took one last image, which showed the refugees alone at sea, a few hundred meters from the Turkish coast. No Turkish units were in the area, the pilot reported. The dinghy, he reported, had no motor and the Greek Coast Guard had sailed off. The refugees, including four children, were only rescued the next morning at 6:52 a.m. by the Turkish Navy.

      The Greek Coast Guard has been systematically conducting pushbacks for several months. They stop refugee boats in Greek territorial waters and sometimes destroy their motors before then towing them back toward Turkey. “Aggressive surveillance,” is the official term the government in Athens has come up with to describe the practice. In fact, it is illegal.

      Frontex regulations require Leggeri to suspend missions when he learns of rights violations of a serious nature or that are likely to persist. His forces, after all, are supposed to protect human rights. But Leggeri insists that he has no reliable information about pushbacks in his possession – despite the fact that DER SPIEGEL and its reporting partners have exhaustively documented how Frontex units were nearby during at least seven illegal pushback operations.

      During their operations, Frontex personnel are under the command of Greek border officials. Already last March, a Greek liaison officer ordered a Danish Frontex unit to abandon a group of intercepted refugees at sea, according to internal emails that DER SPIEGEL has reviewed. Nevertheless, Frontex decided nothing was wrong and closed the matter within a day. Later, in testimony he delivered before the European Parliament, Leggeri claimed the incident had merely been a misunderstanding.

      The pushback that took place off Lesbos in the night of April 18-19 was exhaustively documented by Frontex officers themselves. There is a strong belief “that presented facts support an allegation of possible violation of Fundamental Rights or international protection obligations such as the principle of non-refoulement,” reads an internal Frontex report that DER SPIEGEL has obtained.

      The case was apparently so sensitive that Leggeri took personal control over the investigation and did not, as was standard procedure, delegate it to his Fundamental Rights Officer. On May 8, he wrote to Ioannis Plakiotakis, the Greek minister of maritime affairs, a letter that DER SPIEGEL has obtained. In it, Leggeri voiced his concern and requested an internal investigation. The observance of human rights, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, is an “ultimate requirement” of the Frontex mission, he wrote.

      The answer from the Greek government is a smorgasbord of attempts to explain it away. Migration flows in the Aegean represent a “hybrid nature threat,” the response reads. Because of the corona crisis, it continues, it is more important than ever to prevent illegal border crossings and none of the migrants had requested asylum. According to an initial assessment by Greek officials, the letter claims, none of those on board were in particular need of protection.

      Legal experts see the Greek response as worthless. “The Greek Coast Guard without a doubt committed a human rights violation in the case,” says Dana Schmalz, an international law expert with the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg. From her perspective, it is a clear case of an illegal pushback. It is impossible, she says, to determine if someone needs protection or if they are faced with danger back in Turkey on board a rickety dinghy. Individual proceedings conducted on land are necessary to make such a determination, she says. Furthermore, she continues, the Greek Coast Guard put the migrants’ lives in danger by abandoning them at sea in a dinghy without a motor.

      But Leggeri was satisfied with the report. The verdict: There was no pushback, there were no human rights violations. The head of Frontex silently buried the incident. “There have been several occasions when Leggeri has not provided us with adequate information,” says Tineke Strik, a member of European Parliament from the Netherlands.

      When reached for comment, Frontex said the Greek government had not ascertained any human rights violations. The agency has to rely on national authorities to investigate such incidents, Frontex insisted, since it is not authorized to undertake such investigations itself.

      Frontex officials are actually required to report incidents where they suspect that human rights violations may have occurred, so-called “Serious Incident Reports.” But such reports are hardly ever written. For years, Frontex officials have followed the example of their boss Leggeri: When in doubt, keep quiet.

      Insiders describe the rules as a kind of omertà, a code of silence. Hardly anyone is willing to risk their career or cause problems for their host country. In one case, an official even tried to prevent a Swedish colleague from submitting a Serious Incident Report, the head of Swedish border control told the Frontex Management Board.

      A German federal police officer is one of the few willing to dissent, though he has asked that we not publish his real name. On Nov. 28, 2020, his first day on a Frontex mission on the Greek island of Samos, an article from DER SPIEGEL popped up on his mobile phone. The story was about the Uckermark, the ship on which he was scheduled to serve that very evening. The article reported that the Germans had stopped a refugee boat on August 10 and handed it over to the Greek Coast Guard, which then proceeded to abandon the refugees at sea.

      The federal policeman went to his commanding officer and said he couldn’t participate in such operations and essentially said he didn’t want to be an accessory to any legal transgressions. Later, he sent an explanation around to his comrades via WhatsApp: “I have decided for me personally that I cannot tolerate the measures taken by the Greeks and certainly cannot support them.”

      His commanding officer responded a few minutes later: “The fact is that our actions are legal! Covered by the Frontex mandate.” He apparently was referring to the requirement to obey orders from the Greek Coast Guard.

      The German Federal Police does not contradict the man’s account, but when contacted, the force denied having taken part in any legal violations. The policeman himself, however, had a different view of the situation. He refused to take part in the mission, preferring instead to stay on land. He says he will never again volunteer to take part in a Frontex mission.

      Dodgy Business: How Leggeri Landed in the Sights of the European Anti-Fraud Office

      The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) always gets involved when there are suspicions that EU financial interests have been violated. And recently, OLAF opened an investigation into Frontex. On Dec. 7, OLAF officials searched Frontex headquarters in Warsaw, including the offices belonging to Leggeri and to Head of Cabinet Thibauld de La Haye Jousselin.

      Leggeri has yet to comment publicly on the investigation. According to members of the German parliament, the Bundestag, Leggeri testified before the Committee on Internal Affairs in January in Berlin and said that the inquiry had to do with the pushback accusations and that he couldn’t say any more. That, though, is at best only half true.

      DER SPIEGEL has learned that the investigation has a much broader scope than that. For weeks, OLAF officials have been summoning witnesses and interrogating Frontex staff members.

      One focus of the investigation is apparently a possible case of fraud. A Polish IT company sold the agency a business software solution that cost hundreds of thousands of euros, in part for the training of border guards. Frontex employees complained to their superiors, however, that the software didn’t work well. But the agency nevertheless paid most of the negotiated purchase price. According to documentation DER SPEIGEL has seen, employees informed management in 2018 that the inconsistencies in the case could amount to fraud.

      Leggeri, too, learned of the allegations, and an internal investigation was undertaken. “But according to EU regulations, the Frontex director is required to immediately report potential cases of fraud to OLAF,” says Valentina Azarova of the Manchester International Law Centre. Frontex declined to comment on the OLAF investigation. The Polish software company in question insisted that it has thus far correctly fulfilled all of its contractual obligations to Frontex. And the company is still getting contracts from the European border agency, some of them worth millions.

      The OLAF investigators are also apparently interested in suspicions of workplace harassment at Frontex. They hope to find out if Leggeri or his head of cabinet have yelled at or otherwise harassed agency employees. They are also investigating whether staff members were ordered to withhold information from Fundamental Rights Officer Arnáez and her successor – and if so, by whom.

      OLAF emphasizes that the presumption of innocence still applies, despite the inquiry, explaining that the existence of the investigation offers no proof that anything untoward took place. But there are apparently serious indications of personal misconduct on the part of Leggeri. The collection of questions being asked by investigators indicate significant doubts about his leadership style.

      In Brussels, some refer to Leggeri as “Fabrice Teflon,” with the Frontex boss having thus far survived despite accusations of mismanagement and allegations that his agency was involved in pushbacks. Now, though, the pressure has been cranked up.

      European Commissioner Johansson has more or less made it clear that she no longer considers Leggeri to be tenable in his position. “It has been difficult to keep track of the missteps,” says a high-ranking Commission official. “The priority must be on the long-term reputation of the agency. But it has been hard to reconcile recent actions with that aim.”

      It is not, however, up to the European Commission to decide Leggeri’s fate. That is a decision that must be made by the Frontex Management Board. The board is essentially made up of representatives from those countries that are part of the Schengen Area, with the Commission having just two deputies on the board. EU member states have always thrown their support behind Leggeri in the past. And many of them are likely pleased by the occasionally ruthless methods employed by Frontex to prevent asylum-seekers from crossing into the EU, believes Giulia Laganà, a migration expert with the Open Society European Policy Institute.

      The question is whether the Management Board will continue to back Leggeri once the accusations of workplace harassment and even potential fraud are made public. The European Parliament has already announced its intention to conduct a four-month inquiry into the agency, with the investigation’s mandate having been kept intentionally broad. Leggeri’s leadership style and the workplace atmosphere at Frontex are to be included in the inquiry.

      Even Leggeri’s own staff members in Warsaw have begun wondering how long their boss will continue to cling to his post. “OLAF is onto us, morale is down,” says one official. “I wonder why he doesn’t just leave.”

      https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/missteps-and-mismanagement-at-frontex-scandals-plunge-europe-s-border-agency

    • Frontex, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières, à nouveau mise en cause pour ses liens avec des lobbyistes

      Premier corps armé en uniforme de l’Union européenne, l’organisme n’aurait pas déclaré ses liens avec des lobbyistes de l’industrie de la surveillance et de l’armement.

      De nouvelles accusations contre Frontex ont été lancées, vendredi 5 février, par la chaîne publique allemande ZDF, laquelle a, avec la collaboration de l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), mené une enquête sur les liens entre l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et l’industrie de la surveillance et de l’armement.

      Des dizaines de documents, auxquels Le Monde a également eu accès, démontrent des infractions aux règles des institutions européennes sur le lobbying, un défaut de transparence et une absence quasi complète de préoccupation pour le respect des droits humains. Ce dernier point était déjà au cœur d’un débat récent sur le rôle du corps européen dans des « pushbacks », des refoulements illégaux de migrants, en Grèce et en Hongrie notamment.

      Dotée d’un budget en forte hausse (6 millions d’euros lors de sa création en 2005, 460 millions en 2020, 5,6 milliards prévus pour 2021-2027) et d’un effectif qui devrait atteindre 10 000 personnes à terme, Frontex, premier corps armé en uniforme de l’Union européenne (UE), effectue actuellement des missions de sauvetage et de surveillance, en appui des forces nationales. Elle lutte aussi contre divers trafics et participe aux expulsions des migrants irréguliers.

      Mais l’agence est, en réalité, en train de devenir un véritable corps de police appelé à se doter de nombreux équipements : armes, radars, drones, systèmes de vérification des documents et de reconnaissance faciale, véhicules, avions, etc.
      Profiter des opportunités

      Devient-elle, du même coup, une sorte d’acteur du secteur de la sécurité et de l’armement ? Et échappe-t-elle au contrôle démocratique, celui du Parlement européen notamment, qui, en 2019, exigeait de l’institution dirigée par le Français Fabrice Leggeri la mise au point d’un « registre transparence », conforme aux pratiques des autres institutions de l’UE ? Ce sont les questions posées par les investigateurs de la ZDF et de CEO, qui ont examiné les dernières années de fonctionnement de l’institution installée à Varsovie.

      Le registre, qui était réclamé par les eurodéputés, devait notamment recenser l’ensemble des réunions tenues avec des représentants des entreprises. Il est « en préparation », dit-on chez Frontex. Et il ne devrait pas satisfaire les attentes : en 2018 et 2019, indiquent des documents de CEO, 91 des 125 lobbyistes reçus par Frontex (soit 72 %) n’étaient pas inscrits au registre européen de la transparence, comme le veulent pourtant les règles fixées pour les institutions de l’UE.

      Idem pour 58 % des entreprises consultées. Sur une application créée pour centraliser les demandes de contacts, aucune demande ne leur est d’ailleurs formulée quant à leur inscription dans ce registre. Etonnamment, le service de presse de Frontex affirme de son côté que l’agence « ne rencontre pas de lobbyistes ».

      Il semble évident, pourtant, que le secteur de la défense entend profiter des opportunités offertes par le développement des missions et des moyens de l’agence. Le programme Horizon 2020 avait déjà affecté 118 millions d’euros au développement de la recherche en lien avec le projet de « Sécurité aux frontières extérieures » de l’UE. Un fonds avait, lui, été doté de 2,8 milliards d’euros pour la période 2018-2020. Et la nécessité d’équiper Frontex a évidemment aiguisé un peu plus les appétits des acteurs du marché mondial du « border control », qui enfle de 8 % chaque année et frôle désormais les 20 milliards d’euros.
      « Surveillance agressive »

      L’agence dirigée par M. Leggeri est-elle sortie de son rôle en s’arrogeant un statut d’intermédiaire de fait entre l’industrie et des institutions européennes soucieuses de conjurer à tout prix le risque de nouveaux flux migratoires ? Serait-elle, même, devenue un acteur qui entend stimuler cette industrie, voire lui confier les rênes d’une politique à vocation essentiellement sécuritaire ?

      Avec son objectif de « faciliter la coopération entre les autorités de contrôle aux frontières, la recherche et l’industrie », Frontex a, en tout cas, multiplié les congrès, les rencontres et les « ateliers » où grands patrons, hauts fonctionnaires, mais aussi délégués des Etats membres échangent beaucoup. Sur des questions de technologie, de sécurité, de « surveillance agressive », mais rarement de droits humains.

      Déjà mise en cause pour avoir tardé à mettre en place un service interne chargé de la surveillance du respect des droits fondamentaux des migrants, l’agence n’aurait, en effet, presque jamais consulté le « Forum des droits fondamentaux » constitué à cette fin. Une organisation qui était membre du forum indique d’ailleurs n’avoir aucun souvenir d’un quelconque échange sur la question des droits et des libertés dans le cadre du lancement d’appels d’offres.

      « La protection des droits humains est un sujet trop important pour le sacrifier à la défense des intérêts de l’industrie », notent les responsables de l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory

      Parmi les participants à des réunions, on a noté, en revanche, la présence de représentants de pays très critiqués pour leur politique à l’égard des migrants, comme la Bosnie-Herzégovine ou l’Australie. Des responsables du département américain de la Homeland Security ont été également conviés.

      « Les conclusions de tout cela sont extrêmement préoccupantes », notent les responsables de CEO. Ils déplorent une politique migratoire qui risque de reposer seulement sur une force de police armée et des techniques comme la surveillance biométrique. « La protection des droits humains est un sujet trop important pour le sacrifier à la défense des intérêts de l’industrie », relèvent-ils.

      « Nous vivons une métamorphose du rôle de Frontex. Il faut en prendre la mesure et s’y habituer », affirmait, vendredi, M. Leggeri, interrogé par Europe 1. On ne sait pas si Ylva Johansson, la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, qui demande que la confiance en Frontex soit « entièrement rétablie », approuvera totalement ce propos.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/02/05/nouvelles-accusations-contre-frontex-l-agence-europeenne-des-gardes-frontier

    • PUSHBACK REPORT 2020

      VIOLENCE IS INCREASING – IN #2020 MARE LIBERUM COUNTED AT LEAST 9,000 PEOPLE ILLEGALLY PUSHED BACK

      #Mare_Liberum monitors the current human rights situation in the Aegean Sea using its own ships. As independent observers, we conduct research in order to document and publicise circumstances at the European border. Since March 2020, Mare Liberum has witnessed a dramatic increase in human rights violations in the Aegean, both at sea and on land. Illegal pushbacks, in which those fleeing and migrating people are pushed back across a national border, play an especially crucial role. Over the past year in particular, pushbacks have become an inhumane everyday reality for people on the move. Pushbacks happen almost daily at the Greek-Turkish border and in 2020 alone, we counted 321 pushbacks in the Aegean Sea, with some 9,798 people pushed back.

      Although pushbacks have demonstrably been carried out at the EU’s external border for years, media attention has now increased notably, especially in recent months. News magazines such as Der Spiegel and the research collective Bellingcat have been able to publicly demonstrate how the Hellenic Coast Guard forcibly pushes those seeking protection back to Turkey, thereby violating international, European and national law. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex, as has become all too clear, not only turns a blind eye to illegal repatriation operations, but rather actively and systematically participates.

      Within the framework of the annual report, we seek to adopt a perspective on pushbacks that looks at the long-term development of these practices at the EU’s external border. The comprehensive documentation of pushbacks forms the basis of the report and is an essential part of our monitoring work in the Aegean. Beyond the mere counting of pushbacks, our work also includes the collection of relevant information on the persons affected by pushbacks, practices by the responsible actors and related geographical data. We have gained deeper insights into these issues by conducting interviews with people who have themselves been pushed back at the Greek-Turkish border.

      https://mare-liberum.org/en/pushback-report

    • NEW REPORT ON CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN THE AEGEAN

      Since March 2020, collective expulsions in the Aegean Sea have been perpetrated with impunity.

      Legal Centre Lesvos’ new report contributes to the growing body of evidence, media coverage, civil society reports and other investigations which have documented how Greek authorities are deliberately and systematically abandoning hundreds of migrants in the middle of the Aegean sea, without means to call for rescue, on unseaworthy, motorless dinghies and liferafts. It is intended to serve as a resource for survivors of collective expulsions and solidarity actors.

      Following the Legal Centre Lesvos’ first report, the present report is based on evidence shared by over fifty survivors of collective expulsions, and underscores the widespread, systematic and violent nature of this attack against migrants. Beyond being egregious violations of international, European and national human rights law, this report argues that the constituent elements of the modus operandi of collective expulsions in the Aegean amount to crimes against humanity within the definition of Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

      Despite overwhelming evidence of collective expulsions in the Aegean, the national and European response has been to turn a blind eye: failing to even attempt to hold the responsible Greek authorities to account, let alone other public and private actors directly or indirectly involved. On the contrary, the European Commission has praised the violent “border and migration management” practices implemented in Greece and underwritten its support with substantial financial and material assistance. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which prevented Greece carrying out “official” deportations to Turkey, collective expulsions have conveniently served as an unofficial implementation of the “EU-Turkey Deal” and other bilateral “readmission” agreements with Turkey, which form part of fortress Europe’s border externalisation drive.

      There are only so many times legal and civil society actors can list and table such human rights violations and be met with deafening silence and inaction before this itself becomes evidence of Greek and European liability for collective expulsions as an egregious attack on migrants’ lives. Such inaction also reveals how migrants’ lives are increasingly treated as disposable, in a manner that has historically accompanied the commission of atrocity crimes.

      While the systematic violence of pushbacks in the Aegean is scandalous, it is also the logical endpoint of a dehumanising and punitive European border regime that has systematically obstructed access to territory and the right to asylum by prioritising and funding the ‘hotspot’ containment system, accelerated procedures, detention, deportations, border militarisation and externalisation through deals of questionable legality with third countries; as well as by prosecuting migrants and solidarity actors in a manner that successfully obscures Europe’s own violent, imperialist role in many of the reasons people migrate.

      The absence of serious investigations, let alone practical steps to redress violations are a clear sign that collective expulsions form part of a Greek and European migration policy: instrumentalising human suffering in acts of spectacular state violence for the purpose of deterring migration, at any cost.

      In this context, it is important to ask what justice might look like for survivors of crimes against humanity in the Aegean, many of whom experience ongoing psychological trauma and distress as a result of these crimes. Survivors who have been in contact with the Legal Centre Lesvos have spoken about justice in terms of being able to safely reach Europe. Justice for collective expulsions as crimes against humanity must therefore include safe and legal routes to Europe, as well as defunding, demilitarising and dismantling Europe’s violent border regime.

      https://legalcentrelesvos.org/2021/02/01/crimesagainstumanityintheaegean

      #crimes_contre_l'humanité

      pour télécharger le rapport :
      legalcentrelesvos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Collective-Expulsions-in-the-Aegean-LCL-01.02.2021-1.pdf

    • UE : Frontex accusée d’incarner l’« Europe forteresse »

      Soupçons de refoulements illégaux de migrants et de bafouement des droits fondamentaux, l’agence Frontex est dans la tourmente. Au point de diviser la Commission européenne.

      C’est potentiellement ce que les Anglo-Saxons appellent la « tempête parfaite », la « poly polémique » qui couve chez Frontex, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes.

      Entre les accusations de fermer les yeux ou de participer à des refoulements illégaux de migrants, l’enquête de l’Office anti-fraude sur des allégations de harcèlement et d’inconduite ayant poussé des responsables à quitter l’agence ou l’absence, à ce jour, de recrutement des quarante agents chargés de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux, Frontex accumule les tuiles.

      Après l’enquête de la médiatrice européenne, qui s’est aussi penchée sur son cas, c’est le Parlement européen qui s’en mêle. Outre la mise en place d’un « groupe d’enquête permanent », les eurodéputés ont aussi refusé, fin de la semaine dernière, d’octroyer « la décharge budgétaire » à l’agence, nous explique l’élue belge Saskia Bricmont (Ecolo). « Chaque année, le Parlement a un pouvoir de contrôle budgétaire. Donner la décharge, cela signifie qu’on considère que Frontex a accompli ses missions, a respecté le cadre légal et a donc droit au budget suivant », explique-t-elle. En commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, les eurodéputés ont donc décidé de reporter de six mois cette décharge, une décision qui doit être validée en plénière mais que « tous les groupes politiques » soutiennent, ajoute l’élue. D’ici là, il est principalement attendu de Frontex qu’elle recrute les agents chargés de défendre en interne les droits fondamentaux.
      Mandat et budget élargis

      Depuis cinq ans, le mandat de l’agence a été élargi considérablement. Ses effectifs multipliés. En 2016, Frontex se félicitait du fait qu’elle emploierait 1500 agents à l’horizon 2020. Elle devrait être à 10.000 d’ici 2027, pour un budget de plus de cinq milliards sur sept ans, contre une enveloppe annuelle de 19 millions il y a quinze ans.

      Newsletter Repensons notre quotidien

      Infos positives, bons plans, solutions... Chaque dimanche, place aux initiatives qui peuvent changer votre quotidien.

      Car pour Fabrice Leggeri, le patron de Frontex, les critiques trouvent bien leur source dans ce renforcement des pouvoirs de l’agence. « Pour la première fois, une agence cesse d’être un objet simplement administratif européen, mais a du personnel sur le terrain. C’est une responsabilité d’autant plus grande que nous avons l’usage de la force, sous l’autorité et le contrôle des Etats, et qu’il y a bien sûr des contrepoids, les droits fondamentaux. C’est tout à fait normal que cela suscite des réactions, parce que c’est inhabituel », a-t-il expliqué la semaine dernière lors d’un événement organisé par la Fondation Robert Schuman. « Il peut y avoir des retards de mise en œuvre de certaines choses, tout ne sera certainement pas parfait. Il faut utiliser cette période où il y a beaucoup de questionnements sur l’agence pour expliquer, faire de la pédagogie », a-t-il ajouté.

      A ses côtés, le vice-président de la commission en charge de la Promotion du mode de vie européen, Margaritis Schinas, a évoqué la tentative de « quelques milieux » de bâtir « un narratif qui affaiblit Frontex au moment où nous avons le plus besoin de l’agence. Ça, je ne l’accepterai jamais ». Un ton qui contraste avec celui de sa collègue aux Affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, qui a démenti fin janvier les explications données par Leggeri pour justifier le retard de l’embauche des 40 agents pour les droits fondamentaux.

      Selon le quotidien français Le Monde, François Xavier-Bellamy, chef de la délégation Les Républicains au sein du groupe du Parti populaire européen (PPE, conservateurs) du Parlement européen, a écrit à Ylva Johansson en évoquant de sa part une tentative de déstabilisation voire de procès politique envers Fabrice Leggeri.
      Pas en ligne sur le lobbying

      S’ajoutent à tout cela les accusations de relations troubles avec l’industrie de l’armement et de la biométrie (par exemple, la reconnaissance faciale), étudiées de long en large par l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) le mois dernier. Cette dernière estime que l’élargissement des compétences de Frontex et son besoin d’équipement neuf (y compris en matière de défense) ont été une aubaine pour ces industries.

      Entre 2017 et 2019, Frontex a rencontré pas moins de 108 entreprises pour discuter d’armes à feu et de munitions, d’équipements de surveillance etc. Contre dix think tanks, 15 universités et seulement une ONG. Dans les procès-verbaux de ces réunions obtenus par CEO grâce à des demandes d’accès aux documents, elle a pu constater que les droits fondamentaux figuraient rarement à l’agenda. « Sans surprise, il y a des chevauchements significatifs entre les entreprises qui font du lobbying à Frontex et celles qui bénéficient le plus des marchés publics » de l’agence, explique l’ONG.

      En outre, l’agence ne publie pas toutes ses rencontres et voit majoritairement (72 %) des représentants du privé qui ne sont pas enregistrés dans le registre de transparence de l’UE. Frontex s’en est défendu en répondant qu’elle ne faisait pas l’objet de lobbying, compte tenu du fait qu’elle n’est pas impliquée dans le processus législatif européen. Alors, acharnement ou véritable scandale ? L’enquête des eurodéputés devrait permettre d’y voir clair. C’est aussi l’avis/l’espoir de Fabrice Leggeri, qui a jusqu’ici résisté aux appels à la démission.

      https://plus.lesoir.be/358143/article/2021-03-01/ue-frontex-accusee-dincarner-leurope-forteresse

    • La droite française au secours de Fabrice Leggeri, patron de Frontex

      Le groupe #LR au Parlement européen critique la « tentative de déstabilisation » à laquelle se livrerait la commissaire Ylva Johansson à l’égard du directeur de l’agence.

      Le torchon brûle entre la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures et à la migration, #Ylva_Johansson, et la droite française. Dans une lettre au ton cinglant adressée vendredi 26 février à l’ancienne ministre sociale-démocrate suédoise et lue par Le Monde, #François_Xavier-Bellamy, chef de la délégation #Les_Républicains (LR) au sein du groupe du #Parti_populaire_européen (#PPE, conservateurs) interroge la commissaire. Et il parle de « tentative de déstabilisation », de « divergence de fond », voire de « procès politique » que la commissaire instruirait contre Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur exécutif de l’agence des gardes-frontières et gardes-côtes Frontex.

      Ce responsable français est sur la sellette depuis des mois. Pour des refoulements illégaux de migrants (pushbacks) qu’aurait favorisés l’agence. Pour des retards dans le recrutement d’une quarantaine d’officiers chargés précisément de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux par les agents de Frontex. Pour d’apparentes réticences à se conformer à des règles administratives en matière budgétaire. Ou encore pour ne pas avoir souscrit à des obligations de transparence en ce qui concerne des réunions avec des lobbys et des responsables de l’industrie de la défense et de la surveillance.

      Le groupe socialiste du Parlement a demandé la démission du numéro un de Frontex

      Ce dernier point n’est pas mentionné dans la lettre de M. Bellamy et l’entourage de Mme Johansson semble, par ailleurs, considérer qu’il n’y a pas de quoi mettre en cause M. Leggeri pour ces contacts, dénoncés notamment par l’ONG #Corporate_Europe_Observatory. Sur les autres questions, en revanche, la commissaire a demandé des explications. Et le groupe socialiste du Parlement a demandé la démission du numéro un de Frontex. En décembre, la responsable de la direction générale des affaires intérieures de la Commission adressait, elle, une longue lettre à M. Leggeri, avec, à la clé, de nombreux griefs.

      Demande de preuves

      Les élus LR volent, eux, au secours du directeur et demandent très fermement des explications à la commissaire. Quelles preuves a-t-elle, interrogent-ils, quand elle accuse M. Leggeri de ne pas se conformer aux directives budgétaires, comme elle l’a fait le 22 février dans la commission de contrôle du Parlement ? Sans éléments incontestables, cela pourrait s’apparenter à une volonté de déstabiliser le patron de l’agence, estiment-ils.

      A propos des refoulements illégaux de migrants, les eurodéputés français endossent les explications livrées jusqu’ici par Frontex : sur treize épisodes douteux, huit ont été jugés conformes par un groupe de travail constitué par la Commission. Cinq autres cas sont encore à l’examen, sur lesquels Mme Johansson a exigé « toutes les explications nécessaires ».

      La Turquie est soupçonnée d’être à l’origine d’informations sur les refoulements illégaux de migrants

      M. Bellamy lui demande à son tour si elle a répondu à un courrier qui lui a été adressé en novembre par M. Leggeri, et dans lequel il réclamait des instructions claires quant à l’attitude à adopter à l’égard de la Turquie. Celle-ci, qui a orienté massivement des migrants vers la Grèce et la Bulgarie en mars 2020, est aussi soupçonnée par certaines sources d’être à l’origine d’informations sur les refoulements illégaux de migrants.
      « Reproches infondés »

      Le groupe LR, qui bénéficie du soutien tacite d’autres élus du PPE, exige, dès lors, de disposer de tous les échanges entre Frontex et la Commission. La lettre se termine par des questions sur l’éventuel désaccord entre la commissaire Johansson et Frontex au sujet des missions mêmes de l’agence.

      Relayant l’idée que la commissaire serait partisane des « frontières ouvertes » – ce qu’elle conteste – les eurodéputés lui demandent s’il y a, de sa part, « un désaccord de fond » sur la stratégie actuelle de la Commission von der Leyen, qui vise à garantir le « mode de vie européen » ? A savoir la maîtrise des frontières, la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine et la contribution à « la sécurité intérieure ».

      « En instruisant un procès politique au moyen de reproches infondés, vous prendriez le risque de violer les principes fondamentaux de l’Etat de droit, de salir des fonctionnaires intègres et loyaux, de fragiliser la cohérence de l’action européenne », conclut la lettre. Contacté dimanche, le cabinet de Mme Johansson a déclaré avoir reçu la lettre mais ne pas souhaiter réagir immédiatement.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/03/01/la-droite-francaise-au-secours-de-fabrice-leggeri-patron-de-frontex_6071549_

    • Un rapport d’enquête interne peu concluant sur le rôle de Frontex dans des refoulements illégaux de migrants

      Le document présenté lundi s’abstient d’impliquer des membres de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes dans des incidents en mer Egée.

      Un long rapport, lu par Le Monde et présenté, le 1er mars, par un groupe de travail désigné par le conseil d’administration de Frontex, confirme qu’il ne sera décidément pas simple, voire pas possible, de démontrer que des membres de l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et garde-côtes ont été impliqués dans des « pushbacks » en mer Egée, des refoulements illégaux de migrants.

      Ce document final, pourtant très attendu, n’apporte aucune conclusion déterminante. D’autant que, sur quatre des cinq incidents encore jugés litigieux (huit ont été classés en janvier), l’enquête se poursuit.

      Sur la base des informations qui lui ont été livrées, le groupe de travail, composé de représentants de diverses institutions européennes et d’Etats membres, formule quelques recommandations qui peuvent être lues comme des critiques implicites du fonctionnement actuel de Frontex. Il prône ainsi une amélioration des rapports et de la surveillance des missions, une utilisation systématique de la vidéo, la recension de toute possible violation des droits humains et la suspension de l’aide apportée aux pays qui ne les respecteraient pas.
      Situations douteuses

      Pour le reste, la liste des « incidents » qui se seraient déroulés entre le 18 avril et le 21 octobre 2020 ne mentionne que les soupçons, parfois lourds mais jugés insuffisants, qui pèsent plutôt, en réalité, sur les gardes-côtes grecs et la marine turque, qui agissent aux limites des eaux territoriales des deux pays. Embarcations chassées, menacées, remorquées : dans certains cas, un navire suédois ou un avion danois mis à la disposition de l’agence ont recensé des situations douteuses, mais le groupe de travail conclut qu’il semble « impossible de les élucider entièrement ». D’autant que ce sont les autorités nationales qui assurent le commandement des opérations.

      Le rapport tient à souligner cependant l’importance de la mission de Frontex, présentée comme la « principale garantie de frontières solides et protégées ». Il y est rappelé aussi que, grâce aux interventions de Frontex, 28 000 personnes ont été sauvées en 2019 et près de 3 000 en 2020, tandis que 10 433 illégaux et 84 trafiquants étaient arrêtés. A propos des incidents considérés comme des « pushbacks » par des journalistes et des ONG, le document invite à considérer qu’aucun décès, aucune disparition et aucune blessure n’y seraient liés.

      Fabrice Leggeri, le directeur exécutif de l’agence, qui doit être entendu jeudi 4 mars par un comité spécial du Parlement européen, pourra se prévaloir de ces conclusions face aux diverses accusations dont il faitl’objet. L’Office de lutte antifraude (OLAF) et la médiatrice de l’Union européenne enquêtent aussi sur la gestion de l’agence, basée à Varsovie, tandis que la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, a réclamé toutes les explications sur l’action en mer Egée.
      Action de la Turquie

      M. Leggeri soulignera sans doute, jeudi, qu’il espère obtenir de la Commission qu’elle lui indique les lignes directrices précises qu’il doit suivre en ce qui concerne, notamment, l’action de la Turquie. Dans les considérations qu’il a formulées à destination du groupe de travail de son conseil d’administration, il rappelle d’ailleurs que les autorités d’Ankara entendent utiliser la migration comme un « levier politique » et il souligne que la Grèce se dit soumise aux « menaces hybrides » du régime turc.

      Soutenu entre autres par la droite française au Parlement, le directeur de Frontex transforme ainsi le débat sur le rôle humanitaire de son agence en une question géostratégique, et il incite la Commission à se positionner par rapport à l’encombrant partenaire avec lequel elle a signé, en 2016, un accord visant à réduire les flux migratoires vers l’Europe.

      Pendant ce temps, la Ligue hellénique des droits de l’homme, l’ONG Legal Centre Lesvos et l’organisation juridique Front-Lex demandent à Frontex « de suspendre immédiatement ou de cesser » ses activités en mer Egée, sous peine d’une action devant la justice européenne. Legal Centre Lesvos aurait documenté, depuis mars 2020, 17 refoulements de plus de 50 migrants entre la Grèce et la Turquie. L’ONG estime aussi que l’agence a enfreint le droit européen et violé la convention de Genève de 1951 relative aux droits des réfugiés.

      Frontex est aussi taxée de complicité dans la « détention sommaire de migrants sur les îles de la mer Egée dans des ports, des bus, des navires, des plages où l’accès aux procédures d’asile leur a été refusé ». Le 12 février, l’ONG allemande Mare Liberum faisait état, pour sa part, d’une « escalade inédite » des refoulements de migrants en mer Egée impliquant Frontex en 2020.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/03/03/un-rapport-d-enquete-interne-peu-concluant-sur-le-role-de-frontex-dans-des-r

    • Le patron de Frontex se défend devant les eurodéputés, Bruxelles maintient la pression

      Le patron de Frontex a souligné jeudi devant des eurodéputés qu’aucune « preuve » d’une implication de l’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE dans des refoulements illégaux de migrants n’avait été établie par une enquête, mais Bruxelles a réitéré ses critiques.

      Le patron de Frontex a souligné jeudi devant des eurodéputés qu’aucune « preuve » d’une implication de l’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE dans des refoulements illégaux de migrants n’avait été établie par une enquête, mais Bruxelles a réitéré ses critiques.

      Ce rapport interne, qui doit être examiné vendredi par le conseil d’administration de Frontex et consulté mercredi par l’AFP, n’a pas permis de « clarifier complètement » les circonstances de plusieurs incidents au cours desquels des refoulements de migrants auraient eu lieu. Il préconise d’ailleurs d’améliorer le système de signalement et de surveillance des missions de l’agence.

      « Il n’y a pas eu de faits étayés ou prouvés pour aboutir à la conclusion que Frontex aurait participé ou se serait livrée à des violations des droits fondamentaux », a déclaré son directeur exécutif, Fabrice Leggeri, devant un groupe d’eurodéputés qui a ouvert sa propre enquête sur ces incidents.

      L’agence est montrée du doigt depuis la publication en octobre 2020 d’une enquête de plusieurs médias l’accusant d’être impliquée avec les garde-côtes grecs dans des incidents de refoulement de bateaux de migrants à la frontière entre la Grèce et la Turquie.

      Ces accusations ont également entraîné une enquête du gendarme européen antifraude, l’Olaf, ainsi que de la médiatrice de l’UE.

      La Commission européenne, membre du conseil d’administration de Frontex aux côtés des 27 Etats membres, s’est montrée critique sur la gestion de l’agence, fustigeant notamment la lenteur du recrutement des officiers chargés de surveiller le respect des droits fondamentaux et des agents devant constituer le nouveau contingent permanent.

      Créée en 2004, Frontex a vu son mandat renforcé en 2019. Elle doit se doter d’agents en uniforme et armés, employés directement par l’agence, et non plus mis à disposition provisoirement par les Etats membres.

      Le directeur exécutif a notamment dit qu’un officier et 40 « moniteurs » chargés de veiller au respect des droits fondamentaux étaient en cours de recrutement et que 300 officiers du contingent permanent étaient déployés sur le terrain ou allaient l’être la semaine prochaine.

      La commissaire européenne aux Affaires intérieures Ylva Johansson a toutefois souligné que 700 officiers auraient dû être déployés en janvier.

      Elle a aussi estimé que les « clarifications » sur les accusations de refoulements n’avaient que « trop tardé », et que ce délai n’était « pas bon pour la réputation et la confiance » dans Frontex.

      « Une agence de première classe a besoin d’une gouvernance de première classe », a-t-elle poursuivi, se réjouissant toutefois d’« entendre que beaucoup de choses sont en train d’être réglées ».

      Si des eurodéputés à gauche ont demandé la démission de Fabrice Leggeri, la droite française au Parlement européen a quant à elle pris la défense du patron de Frontex.

      Dans une lettre adressée le 26 février à la responsable suédoise, le président de la délégation française du groupe PPE (droite) François-Xavier Bellamy lui a demandé des « justifications solides et vérifiées » à ses « accusations », dénonçant une « tentative de déstabilisation » du chef de Frontex et « un procès politique ».

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/fil-dactualites/040321/le-patron-de-frontex-se-defend-devant-les-eurodeputes-bruxelles-maintient-

    • Greece accused of ‘shocking’ illegal pushback against refugees at sea

      Lawsuit filed at European court of human rights says group were abandoned in life rafts after some were beaten.

      A lawsuit filed against the Greek state at the European court of human rights accuses Athens of a shocking level of violence in sophisticated inter-agency operations that form part of an illegal pushback strategy to stop the arrival of refugees and migrants.

      The suit, filed by the NGO Legal Centre Lesvos, centres on an incident in October last year in which a fishing boat set off from Marmaris in Turkey for Italy carrying about 200 people, including 40 children and a pregnant woman. The boat ran into difficulty in a storm off the south coast of Crete, leading the captain to radio for assistance.

      The legal case claims that in an operation of unprecedented size and sophistication, instead of helping the stranded people onboard, a Greek search and rescue vessel and two small patrol boats stalled the smuggler’s boat for five hours until speedboats carrying masked commandos arrived. Several passengers claim they were beaten in the ensuing incident.

      Those onboard were separated into two groups and taken to two large coastguard boats, where armed crews of between 10 and 15 men, most wearing balaclavas, searched them and confiscated belongings including phones, passports and money.

      The passengers were then reportedly forced on to several small life rafts, towed back to Turkish waters and abandoned at sea without food, water, life jackets or any means to call for help. By the time they were picked up by the Turkish coastguard, their ordeal had lasted more than 24 hours.

      “It was like watching a movie. The men from the speedboats jumped onboard screaming and shouting, they all had guns and knives and were wearing black and masks,” said Mahmoud, a witness from Syria whose name has been changed.

      “They began beating people with batons, looking for the captain. They punched me in the face and broke my glasses … I understand they don’t want us, but you could send us back to Turkey without the need for violence. When they cut us loose on the rafts we all thought we were going to die,” he said.

      The lawsuit claims the practice of “pushbacks” has become standard for the Greek coastguard since March 2020, when Turkey, in an effort to pressure the EU, told its 4 million registered refugees that it would no longer stop them trying to reach Europe as per a 2016 deal between Ankara and Brussels.

      Athens reacted by temporarily halting all new asylum applications and allegedly employing increasingly brutal tactics to dissuade people in Turkey from making the journey.

      Exact figures are difficult to verify, but rights groups and journalists have recorded hundreds of alleged pushback incidents over the last 12 months. In most cases, people trying to cross the Aegean have been intercepted and towed back to Turkish waters. They are then cut loose either in their own boats, after the Greek coastguard has disabled their engines, or on overcrowded life rafts.

      On several occasions people claim to have been pushed back after landing on Greek soil, and passengers have been abandoned on an uninhabited Turkish islet at least twice, according to reporting by Der Spiegel, Lighthouse Reports and the New York Times.

      In at least one case, the EU border agency, Frontex, is accused of covering up evidence of a Greek pushback operation.

      These collective expulsions, as they are known, are illegal under international law but not under Greek national law. The Guardian’s requests for comment from Greek officials went unanswered. Greece has denied illegality in the past.

      The incident in October stands out because of the reported level of violence involved and the size and scope of the operation, which would have taken hours to coordinate and involved eight Greek vessels and two dozen crew from different agencies.

      “‘Pushback’ isn’t even really the right term. It’s a decision by the authorities to deliberately abandon people at sea putting their lives at risk, with no means to call for rescue and no chance at all to claim asylum,” said Natasha Ntailiani, a Legal Centre Lesvos lawyer representing some of the survivors before the ECHR.

      “It’s a new and disturbing trend characterised by planned and systematic violence, which has increased over the last year in the Aegean region. Even search and rescue vessels and materials are now being used against migrants, which is a remarkable insight into the lengths the Greek authorities are now willing to go to.”

      Testimony from 11 complainants and dozens of pages of collaborating evidence – including geo-located pictures and video, GPS coordinates, and phone and message logs from the ship’s radio, passengers, the Alarm Phone hotline and the Greek and Turkish coastguards – painted a complete and damning picture of the new tactics, the centre said.

      The suit is the fifth LCL has filed at the ECHR in recent years to allege violations of migrant and refugee rights in Greece. Progress is slow, but the applicants hope the latest case will persuade the court that pushbacks, despite the fact they are now reportedly a systemic and regular feature of Greek border policing, are illegal.

      A decision at the court last year that Spain did not breach the rights of two men it expelled from the Melilla enclave on the basis they had tried to enter illegally “as part of a large group” sets a worrying precedent.

      In light of the judgment, Frontex has since asked the European commission if it can refuse to process individual asylum claims if people are travelling in groups, as is often the case in the Aegean.

      “I didn’t even want to go to Greece. We knew that they were harming refugees when they arrive, but it was shocking to experience the reality, which is that Europe doesn’t care at all about human rights and dignity,” said Yara from Damascus, whose name has also been changed. She said she had been traumatised by her experiences on the day the storm hit the fishing boat.

      “Despite all of that, I will still try again. I can’t build a life in Syria or Turkey,” she said.

      Mahmoud echoed Yara’s thoughts. “I got kicked out of Qatar because of the pandemic. I would rather have stayed there,” he said. “If there was a legal way to get to Europe I would take it, but there isn’t. I don’t want to make that journey again, but I will, because I have to.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/26/greece-accused-of-shocking-pushback-against-refugees-at-sea

    • Grèce : refoulements illégaux en Mer Egée

      En Grèce, les « pushbacks » ou refoulements illégaux de potentiels demandeurs d’asile par les garde-côtes grecs vers les eaux turques, se sont systématisés depuis un an.

      Le gouvernement grec se félicite d’avoir réussi à tenir une de ses promesses électorales : réduire le flux de migrants.

      La pratique est en infraction avec le droit maritime et l’obligation de porter assistance aux personnes en détresse en mer, mais aussi au regard du droit européen et international dont l’article 3 de la Convention des Droits de l’Homme stipule l’interdiction du refoulement des réfugiés.

      Informés, le Haut-Commissariat aux Réfugiés de l’ONU et des commissaires européens se disent “alarmés” mais semblent jusqu’à présent bien impuissants à faire respecter le droit d’asile par Athènes. Documentés et dénoncés par des avocats et des ONG internationales, ces refoulements illégaux révèlent des pratiques cruelles et cyniques. Mais rares sont les voix en Grèce à s’élever la voix contre ces renvois aux frontières de l’Europe.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/102791-000-A/grece-refoulements-illegaux-en-mer-egee
      #Samos

    • Message de Claire Rodier via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Dans une interview au Guardian, Gil Arias Fernández, ancien directeur adjoint de Frontex a déclaré qu’il était profondément inquiet de l’atteinte à la réputation de l’agence, de sa décision d’armer les agents et de son incapacité à empêcher l’extrême droite d’infiltrer ses rangs, dans un contexte de mouvements anti-migrants en Europe.

      –—

      Frontex turning ‘blind eye’ to human rights violations, says former deputy

      The former deputy head of Europe’s border and coastguard agency has said the state of the beleaguered force “pains” him and that it is vulnerable to the “alarming” rise of populism across the continent.

      In his first interview since leaving office, #Gil_Arias_Fernández, former deputy director at Frontex and once tipped for the top post, said he was deeply worried about the agency’s damaged reputation, its decision to arm officers, and its inability to stop the far-right infiltrating its ranks, amid anti-migrant movements across Europe.

      “Weapons are not needed for Frontex operations,” he said. “They are more of a problem than a help.”

      Frontex is experiencing the most acute crisis in its 16-year history. The agency is being investigated by the European parliament over allegations of illegal pushbacks of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean and its head, Fabrice Leggeri, is facing calls to quit over allegations he misled the EU commission. Leggeri has strongly rejected allegations about the agency’s operations.

      Arias Fernández, 65, now retired, lost out on the top role to Leggeri in 2015. He admits he did not get on with Leggeri when they worked together for a year.

      “From the first moment I saw that he had a perhaps excessive eagerness to change things. Maybe it was to put his personal stamp on things,” said Arias Fernández.

      He said decisions made by one of the EU’s most powerful agencies had led to complicity in human rights violations.

      “Frontex pains me,” he said. “Especially for the staff, because they don’t deserve what they are going through. We saw the agency as an instrument to help the member states and the migrants. These events put a dent in all that effort.

      “I do not believe that the agency has proactively violated the rights of migrants, but there are reasons to believe that it has turned a blind eye.”
      Gil Arias Fernández. ‘Frontex pains me,’ he said. Photograph: Jose Bautista/Courtesy of Fundation for Causa

      In January 2015, after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, several European politicians suggested the presence of refugees among the terrorists.

      When the media asked Frontex about any link between refugees and the Paris attack, Arias Fernández, a former police commissioner in Spain, told them there was no evidence.

      Arias Fernández believes this cost him the director’s job.

      The political pressure made the job a tough one, Arias Fernández said. “There is a lot of pressure on the part of certain states to put their people in positions of responsibility. Whether the agency is headed by a Frenchman or a Finn may determine whether there is more or less sensitivity to migration problems. The agency is independent, but ‘independent’ should be put in quotation marks because without a fluid relationship with the [European] commission, you have a hard time.

      “Operations have always been conducted unarmed and there have never been any problems. In operations where Libyan tribal clans smuggling migrants shot in the air to frighten the patrols, even there it was not considered appropriate to carry weapons. In this case, weapons are more a problem than a help. The proposal of carrying weapons came from the European Commission, which I do not know to what extent is influenced by lobbyists in Brussels.

      “There is no filter in the recruitment system. You cannot prevent people with extremist ideas from entering, unless they clearly express their position in favour of hate crimes, xenophobia and racism.”

      Arias Fernández pointed to the dearth of human rights training for Frontex officers. “But lack of information should not be used to justify certain things,” he said. “The incidents under investigation were carried out by Greek units following the instructions of their commanders.

      “When there are irregularities like this in operations, it is usually because there are instructions from the authorities responsible for coordinating the operation. The decision to turn back a boat with migrants is not taken by an officer but is an order from above.”
      A rescue boat escorts a dinghy with migrants from Afghanistan as a Frontex ship patrols off Lesbos in Greece. Photograph: Costas Baltas/Reuters

      He said he appreciated borders needed a certain level of security to know who was entering but added that immigration was vitally important for the survival of all European states.

      “I come to this conclusion because there are studies that show that if we do not resort to immigration and other incentives, the EU will have serious problems and the welfare state will be a chimera. We should learn these lessons. In the first half of the pandemic, migrants saved our bacon.

      “In Europe, movements that use populism are growing at an alarming rate, and the fight against immigrants is one of those arguments. States are excessively prudent in not touching this issue. The commission presented the new pact on migration and asylum, which contains no proposals for channelling migration through legal channels. They tried to satisfy all the blocs, Visegrád [Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia], southern states, northern states, and I fear that in the end it satisfies no one.”

      Arias Fernández said the lack of migrants being allowed into Europe would have a severe economic impact amid an ageing workforce: “Who will pay the pensions of the growing number of pensioners?”

      A Frontex spokesman denied the agency ignored migrants’ rights. “The executive director of Frontex has written several letters to the Greek authorities to address incidents that raised his concerns. Two inquiries, including one that was conducted by representatives of national authorities and the European Commission, have found no evidence of violations of human rights in Frontex operations in Greece.”

      The spokesman also denied that officers had always conducted operations while unarmed, saying: “Before this year, Frontex relied exclusively on officers provided by national authorities, who brought their own weapons to the agency’s operational activities. Today, Frontex has its own operational arm, the standing corps, whose core is made up of officers directly employed by the agency who require weapons for self-defence and to protect others.

      “Since Mr Arias left more than half-a-decade ago, Frontex has undergone a massive transformation that included a much bigger focus on cross-border crime, which means a greater chance that our officers may encounter life-threatening situations while patrolling the borders or performing other duties.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jun/11/frontex-turning-blind-eye-to-human-rights-violations-says-former-deputy

      #extrême_droite

    • Human Rights in Europe are at a crossroads

      It is not a ‘one-off’. It did not take place six, twelve or eighteen months ago, and now things are better.

      It was just one of 491 incidents since March 2020, in which 14,720 men, women and children have been denied their fundamental human rights by a coastguard armed with assault rifles and behaving like a sea-militia ‘defending’ Greece against innocent, unarmed, and peaceful men, women and children attempting to find safe places to live.

      In the morning of 10 June, a boat carrying 31 people travelled towards Kos. Closing in on Ag. Fokas, on the south east side of the island, the boat was approached by several vessels from the Hellenic coast guard, and forced back towards Turkey.

      If anyone is wondering what a pushback at sea looks like, this is how it’s being carried out. And it is illegal.

      https://videopress.com/v/vPX3Vme3

      This shocking, immoral and illegal practice has become ‘normal’ in the Aegean Sea. Greece carries it out without let or hindrance, while the EU seems unable or unwilling to act.

      Human Rights in Europe are at a crossroads.

      According to the Greek government and Frontex, this isn’t a pushback, but a ‘prevention of entry’.

      There are two major problems with this assessment. First, under international law, no country is allowed to ‘prevent the entry’ of men, women and children not suspected of any crime (as these people are not) and who intend to apply for asylum. Even if the people in this boat had not entered Greek waters, the Greek coastguard would have broken international law, by forcibly preventing people who wish to apply for asylum, from entering Greece.

      But in fact, secondly, these people had in fact already entered Greek water. It cannot be a ‘prevention of entry’ if people have already ‘entered’: it is a pushback. And it is absolutely illegal.

      In the video we can hear one of the officers on the Hellenic coast guard vessel ΛΣ150, say “everyone abide by the rules, because he’s filming”. It’s disturbing that this even needed to be said. First, because what would have happened had this person not had the presence of mind, and technology, to film? What would have happened then? How would the heavily-armed coastguard have responded to these innocent, unarmed people trying to exercise their fundamental human rights? Why did this coastguard, who noticed a person filming, need to advise his colleagues to abide by the law? What did he fear they would do?

      Secondly, the disturbing images we can see in this video are in fact not ‘abiding by the rules’. It appears the coastguard does not understand – or perhaps accept – the rules. This is a video of the Greek coastguard breaking the law, even as one member of the coastguard warns his colleagues not to do something even worse.

      Nor is this an isolated incident.

      It’s how the Hellenic coastguard – and in some cases also Frontex – have been operating for the last 15 months.

      We must demand that Notis Mitarachis, and Fabrice Leggeri, are held to account for their continued, immoral, unacceptable, and illegal activity in the Aegean Sea. We must demand that the EU – or if, as increasingly seems to be the case, the EU is unwilling – the wider international community takes legal action, now, to prevent the Greek coastguard, the Greek government, Frontex and the EU, breaking international law, and shaming the whole of Europe in the process.

      None of this is acceptable. None of it is even beneficial to either Greece or the EU.

      The time to stop this is now. The time to act is now. The EU can and must act. If it refuses, it is time for the international court to prosecute Mitarachis, Nea Dimokratia, Leggeri, Frontex, and the European Commission. Anything else is to further damage, and indeed make a laughing stock of international law, and all our human rights.

      https://aegeanboatreport.com/2021/06/28/human-rights-in-europe-are-at-a-crossroads

    • Communiqué de presse : Frontex a besoin d’une #réorganisation radicale

      Les députés du groupe de travail sur le contrôle de Frontex, sous l’égide de l’eurodéputée écologiste Tineke Strik, ont présenté aujourd’hui en commission des libertés civiles (LIBE) du Parlement européen, le rapport sur le rôle de Frontex dans le #refoulement illégal des réfugiés. Un des principaux enseignements est la nécessité d’ une réorganisation radicale de l’agence pour qu’elle respecte les droits humains.

      L’enquête menée par les eurodéputés confirme que Frontex a manqué à ses responsabilités en matière de protection des droits humains aux frontières de l’UE. L’agence avait connaissance de violations des droits fondamentaux commises dans des pays de l’UE avec lesquels elle coopère, et n’a pas réagi face à ces allégations. La direction de Frontex a sciemment ignoré les rapports des journalistes d’investigation et d’ONG, les avertissements internes du personnel et même les séquences vidéo dans lesquelles ces violations étaient visibles.

      Saskia Bricmont, députée européenne Vert/ALE, membre de la commission LIBE et responsable du rapport sur la décharge budgétaire Frontex, déclare :

      “En ne faisant pas respecter les droits fondamentaux aux frontières de l’UE, Frontex a failli à son devoir. L’agence a besoin d’une réorganisation radicale. Je salue le travail d’enquête mené par mes collègues : il est essentiel d’identifier les lacunes et les fautes afin d’y remédier au plus vite.”

      “Le rapport dévoile que Frontex était non seulement conscient des violations des droits fondamentaux, mais n’a de surcroît pas réagi de manière appropriée face à son obligation de prévenir les violations des droits humains. En dépit des différents signaux d’alerte provenant d’acteurs internes et externes, l’agence a fait preuve d’inactivité manifeste, voire de réticence à agir. Nous sommes particulièrement préoccupés par le respect des normes en matière de droits humains dans les opérations menées en Grèce et en Hongrie. Nous demandons au directeur exécutif de suspendre immédiatement les opérations en Hongrie et d’évaluer les opérations en Grèce.”

      “Il existe des signes clairs de mauvaise gestion : les rapports internes faisant état de violations des droits fondamentaux ont été ignorés, le recrutement des agents spécialisés dans les droits fondamentaux a été retardé et reste incomplet. Nous ne croyons pas en la capacité de l’actuel directeur exécutif, Fabrice Leggeri, à résoudre les problèmes que nous avons exposés. M. Leggeri a induit le Parlement européen en erreur à plusieurs reprises et a encouragé une culture d’impunité, tout en continuant à nier l’existence des refoulements illégaux.”

      “Notre rapport exhorte le Conseil d’administration de Frontex à reconsidérer la position de M. Leggeri et de l’ensemble de la direction générale. Dans un tel contexte, la décharge budgétaire ne doit pas être octroyée à l’agence. Par ailleurs, il est temps que les États membres assument leur responsabilité commune dans la défense des valeurs européennes en matière de gestion des frontières et le respect des droits fondamentaux.”

      https://twitter.com/saskiabricmont/status/1415611092894724097

      Recommandations du #rapport :

      – Frontex ne doit effectuer des opérations conjointes qu’avec des pays qui agissent dans le plein respect des droits fondamentaux. Pour remplir cette obligation, Frontex devrait surveiller l’ensemble de la zone opérationnelle et enquêter sur tous les incidents ou autres indications de non-conformité.

      – Si un refoulement est signalé à Frontex, l’agence ne devrait pas seulement enquêter en s’appuyant sur les réponses des autorités gouvernementales, mais également vérifier les informations fournies.

      – La Commission européenne devrait conditionner le financement européen de la gestion des frontières au respect des droits fondamentaux par l’État membre concerné.

      https://saskiabricmont.eu/frontex-besoin-reorganisation-radicale
      #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés

      –—

      Réaction de Frontex :

      Frontex welcomes report by the Scrutiny Working Group

      Frontex welcomes the report by the Scrutiny Working Group and its conclusions which reaffirmed that there is no evidence of the Agency’s involvement in any violation of human rights.

      The agency has been working with the Parliament’s scrutiny group in an open and transparent manner, sharing information and receiving the MEPs during an online visit to Frontex. The agency remains committed to cooperating with the European Parliament.

      “I acknowledge the conclusion of Parliament’s fact-finding scrutiny and its recommendations. Frontex is a bigger, more complex organisation than a couple of years ago, so a system that was designed in the past needs to undergo further transformation. The report underlined the challenges of the Agency’s transformation in a more and more complex security environment,” said Frontex Director Fabrice Leggeri.

      “We are determined to uphold the highest standards of border control within our operations. We will look into the recommendations and see how we can implement them to further strengthen the respect of fundamental rights in all our activities,” he added.

      Frontex has completed two stages of the inquiry into last autumn’s media allegations. Both an internal inquiry and the report by a special working group appointed by the Management Board (with Commission and Member states representatives) have found no evidence of any Frontex involvement in violation of human rights.

      The agency has already taken on board many of the recommendations issued by the working group, upgraded its reporting mechanism and reinforced its operational coordination centres to improve information exchange. It will continue working towards an effective and transparent management of EU external borders in full respect of fundamental rights.

      Recent events at the European Union’s external borders have shown that Frontex is an essential assistance for Member States and the whole EU in situations of increased migratory pressure. Our security environment is increasingly volatile and complex.

      Today, Frontex has officially launched its rapid border intervention at Lithuania’s border with Belarus and deployed standing corps officers and equipment to help secure EU’s common external border.

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/frontex-welcomes-report-by-the-scrutiny-working-group-0AQJWY
      https://twitter.com/Frontex/status/1415654854412877824

    • EU border agency ‘has failed to protect asylum seekers’ rights’

      Author of European parliament report says Frontex agency’s director should resign or be sacked

      The EU border agency has failed to protect the human rights of asylum seekers, according to a damning European parliament report on the organisation.

      After a four-month investigation by MEPs the report’s author, Tineke Strik, told the Guardian, that Frontex “did not fulfil its human rights obligations and therefore did not address and therefore did not prevent future violations”.

      Strik, a Dutch Green MEP, wants the agency’s director, Fabrice Leggeri, to resign or be fired, but the special cross-party group of eight MEPs, spanning rightwing nationalists to the radical left, that was convened to investigate Frontex has not made that call.

      Speaking before the report was released on Thursday, Strik continued: “We should consider in the end, can we have confidence in this executive director to really implement those recommendations [in her report] and really change it into a human rights sensitive agency? My group [Green MEPs], we don’t have confidence in him any more. We think it would be sound if the management board would draw the same conclusion and start the search for a new executive director.”

      Once an obscure EU agency, Frontex has become a central pillar of EU border management. After more than a 1.2 million people sought asylum in the EU in 2015, European leaders agreed to give the Warsaw-based organisation more staff and money, a point of consensus in the often fraught EU debate on how to manage migration. By 2027, Frontex will have 10,000 border and coastguards, while its budget has already increased more than 19-fold since its creation in 2006.

      But the agency has come under growing scrutiny over its role in alleged pushbacks in the Aegean Sea, with dozens of human rights organisations calling for it to be abolished.

      Last year Frontex was accused of complicity in forcing back asylum seekers in breach of international law, after video footage emerged of one of its ships creating waves that drove back a dingy in the Aegean Sea crammed with people. That footage came through a joint investigation by Lighthouse Reports, Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asahi, which said it had found six incidents where the agency was directly involved in a pushback in the Aegean or in close proximity to one.

      The committee said they had not found “conclusive evidence” that the agency was involved in pushbacks but concluded Frontex had failed to investigate such reports promptly. “As a result, Frontex did not prevent these violations, nor reduced the risk of future fundamental rights violations,” said the report.

      Strik said it was “pretty clear that [Frontex] were at least aware of what was going on” in the Aegean Sea. The agency’s investigations were “very superficial”, she said. “They asked for a response from the [Greek] government and when the government denied [pushbacks] the case was closed.”

      She said Frontex’s modus operandi was to rely on the word of the EU member state it was working with. “They end up asking the government, the host member state, and they almost always accept this response. Our conclusion is that Frontex did not fulfil its human rights obligations and therefore did not address and therefore did not prevent future violations.”

      The agency had repeatedly failed to respond to reports of rights violations from inside the organisation and external organisations, the MEPs said.

      The blame is placed largely on Leggeri, a former senior official in France’s interior ministry in charge of illegal migration, who has been the agency’s executive director since 2015. He has been singled out for criticism for shoring up his own power base within the agency, while failing to recruit all 40 fundamental rights monitors as required by EU law.

      MEPs found that Leggeri had appointed 63 staff to his private office, a number that far exceeds the average. By contrast, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has 30 staff in her private office. “We contrast that in the way he acts with the monitors, only delaying and undermining, yet he provides for an amazing number of staff measures for his own cabinet,” Strik said.

      The MEPs concluded that Leggeri had delayed the recruitment of three executive directors required under EU law that might have checked his power.

      “That results in a complete lack of checks and balances within the organisation and of course we blame the executive director for that, but also the management board because the management board is overall responsible for good governance in the organisation,” Strik said.

      EU member states, she said, needed to make sure their representatives on the Frontex management board had the required expertise in fundamental rights and a direct line to ministers.

      “One of the problems,” she said, was that Frontex was conceived as a security rather than a rights organisation. EU member states found the agency reassuring: “[They] talk about threats at the border. They always call for Frontex. Maybe as reassurance for their own population, ‘we have secured your borders and we have made you safe’.”

      She said there was a perception inside and outside the agency that upholding human rights was in conflict with border control. “Some of the actors still perceive that when you start acting on fundamental rights, then you become less effective on border control … [Frontex] needs to do both and it’s possible to do both at the same time, so it’s a non-discussion actually.”

      The Guardian has contacted Frontex for a response to the European parliament’s report. The agency has always denied any involvement or knowledge of illegal pushbacks.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/eu-border-agency-has-failed-to-protect-asylum-seekers-rights

    • Frontex wusste von Menschenrechtsverletzungen – und tat nichts

      Monatelang haben EU-Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier SPIEGEL-Enthüllungen zu illegalen Pushbacks von Flüchtlingen in der Ägäis untersucht. Der Bericht ist eine Abrechnung mit Frontex-Direktor Leggeri – er soll belastendes Material vernichtet haben.

      Monatelang haben EU-Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier SPIEGEL-Enthüllungen zu illegalen Pushbacks von Flüchtlingen in der Ägäis untersucht. Der Bericht ist eine Abrechnung mit Frontex-Direktor Leggeri – er soll belastendes Material vernichtet haben.

      Der europäischen Grenzschutzagentur Frontex lagen Beweise für mutmaßlich illegale Pushbacks durch griechische Grenzschützer vor, die Agentur hat es jedoch »versäumt, die Grundrechtsverletzungen anzusprechen und zu verhindern«. Das ist das Ergebnis einer monatelangen Untersuchung des Europaparlaments.

      Eine Prüfgruppe unter Beteiligung aller Fraktionen hat untersucht, was Frontex von den illegalen Pushbacks von Flüchtlingsbooten in der Ägäis wusste – und ob Frontex-Chef Fabrice Leggeri angemessen auf die Rechtsbrüche reagiert hat. Der Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe, den der SPIEGEL vorab einsehen konnte, liest sich wie eine Abrechnung mit Leggeri. Er zeichnet das Bild eines Direktors, der sich für die Einhaltung von Menschenrechten an den EU-Außengrenzen kaum interessiert und alles tut, um Verstöße zu vertuschen. Auf 17 Seiten listen die Abgeordneten seine Verfehlungen auf.

      Leggeri ignorierte sämtliche Hinweise

      Frontex habe öffentliche Berichte über Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den EU-Grenzen generell abgetan, heißt es im Report. Auch auf interne Informationen über mutmaßliche Rechtsbrüche habe die Agentur nicht angemessen reagiert. Leggeri ignoriere die Stellungnahmen und Anfragen seiner Grundrechtsbeauftragten und des sogenannten Konsultativforums. Diese sollen eigentlich dafür sorgen, dass die Agentur die Rechte von Asylsuchenden achtet.

      Trotz zahlreicher Berichte über mutmaßliche Rechtsbrüche in der Ägäis habe Leggeri nie umfassend erwogen, den Frontex-Einsatz zu beenden, oder überlegt, wie er die Menschenrechtsverletzungen verhindern könne. »Im Gegenteil, der Exekutivdirektor behauptet weiterhin, dass ihm keine Informationen über Grundrechtsverletzungen bekannt sind«, schreiben die Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier.

      Darüber hinaus habe Leggeri das Parlament lange Zeit nicht angemessen informiert. Bei seinen Auftritten im Ausschuss habe der Frontex-Direktor Informationen über einzelne Pushbacks verschwiegen. In mehreren Fällen seien Grenzbeamte davon abgebracht worden, Rechtsbrüche mittels eines sogenannten »Serious Incident Reports« an die Frontex-Führung zu melden. Selbst die Einstellung von 40 Grundrechtsbeobachtern, die die Grenzbeamten kontrollieren sollen, habe Leggeri erheblich verzögert. Sie seien noch immer nicht vollständig rekrutiert.

      Frontex machte sich bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen zum Komplizen

      Die Untersuchung des Europaparlaments ist eine Reaktion auf Enthüllungen des SPIEGEL. Gemeinsame Recherchen mit den Medienorganisationen Lighthouse Reports, Bellingcat und dem ARD-Magazin »Report Mainz« zeigten, dass Frontex in der Ägäis in illegale Pushbacks verwickelt ist und sich bei griechischen Menschenrechtsverletzungen zum Komplizen gemacht hatte.

      Frontex-Beamte, darunter auch deutsche Bundespolizisten, stoppen in der Ägäis Flüchtlingsboote, bevor sie die griechischen Inseln erreichen, und übergeben sie an die griechische Küstenwache. Die Grenzschützer setzen die Geflüchteten anschließend systematisch auf dem Meer aus – entweder auf aufblasbaren Rettungsflößen oder auf Schlauchbooten, in denen sie den Motor entfernt haben. So stellen sie sicher, dass die Flüchtlinge nicht erneut griechische Gewässer erreichen können. Oft wenden die griechischen Beamten bei den Aktionen Gewalt an, stechen auf die Schlauchboote ein oder schießen ins Wasser. Bei mindestens sieben Fällen waren Frontex-Einheiten bei solchen Pushbacks in der Nähe oder in sie verstrickt.

      Pushbacks im Mittelmeer: Wie Frontex in Verbrechen verstrickt ist

      Griechische Grenzschützer schleppen Flüchtlinge systematisch aufs offene Meer zurück. Recherchen des SPIEGEL und seiner Partner zeigen, wie Frontex in die illegalen Operationen verwickelt ist. Sehen Sie hier den Film.

      In der Nacht vom 18. auf den 19. April zeichnete Frontex aus der Luft auf, wie die griechische Küstenwache Flüchtlinge auf ein Boot ohne Motor setzte und wegfuhr – ein klarer Rechtsverstoß, der die Menschen in Lebensgefahr brachte. Die Aufarbeitung des Pushbacks vom 18. April übernahm Leggeri persönlich. Dem Parlament verschwieg er den Pushback zunächst. Stattdessen stufte er den Vorfall nachträglich so ein, dass die Grundrechtsbeauftragte der Agentur fortan nicht mehr beteiligt war.

      Leggeri ließ offenbar belastendes Material vernichten

      Einer der brisantesten Vorwürfe im Bericht des Europaparlaments bezieht sich auf den Pushback in jener Nacht. Demnach wies Leggeri die Grundrechtsbeauftragte persönlich an, alle Informationen zu löschen, die sie zu dem Vorfall gesammelt hatte. Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen soll dies aus internen E-Mails hervorgehen, die die Abgeordneten einsehen konnten.

      https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/gefluechtete-in-griechenland-frontex-wusste-von-menschenrechtsverletzungen-u

  • En Rhénanie-du-Nord-Westphalie et dans le Schleswig-Holstein, des centaines d’employé·es des abattoirs sont contaminé·es par le corona. Or le seuil de reconfinement a été fixé à 50 cas pour 100 000 habitant·es pour une région donnée.
    La question est : le déconfinement était-il prématuré en Allemagne ou la misère sociale de ces personnes venant d’Europe de l’Est pour faire des sales boulots sous-payés explique-t-elle ces foyers de contamination ?

    Le ministre de la santé de Rhénanie-du-Nord-Westphalie « a mentionné l’hébergement du personnel des abattoirs, provenant pour la plupart de Roumanie et de Bulgarie, dans des logements collectifs comme une raison possible de l’apparition de l’épidémie. Il se peut que ces foyers ne répondent pas aux normes d’hygiène requises en cas de pandémie. Il faut maintenant examiner cette question. »
    https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/coronavirus-fleischbetrieb-101.html
    #Allemagne #corona #abattoirs #migration #Europe_de_l'Est #salariat #précarité #exploitation

  • On sait tout ça, mais ça fait toujours mal de le lire.
    Si le « Gender Pay Gap » est à 20% en Allemagne, le « Gender Lifetime Earnings Gap » se situe entre 40 et 45%. Les femmes hautement qualifiées nées avant 1974 ont, en moyenne pendant leur vie, un salaire équivalent à celui d’hommes peu qualifiés. Les grandes perdantes sont, bien sûr, les mères. En ces temps de Corona, ce sont elles qui gardent les enfants.
    Juste histoire de (se) le rappeler.

    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gehaltsluecke-maenner-frauen-103.html

    #salaires #inégalité #femmes #gender_lifetime_earnings_gap

  • Syrische Flüchtlinge: 99,6 Prozent machten richtige Angaben

    Gab es Missbrauch bei der Einreise syrischer Flüchtlinge? Sie konnten ab Ende 2014 mithilfe von Fragebögen schneller anerkannt werden. Fast alle haben zu Recht Schutz gesucht, ergab eine Überprüfung.

    Von Michael Stempfle, ARD Hauptstadtstudio

    Es war eine umstrittene Entscheidung des damaligen Bundesinnenministers Thomas de Maizière. Als die Zahl der Flüchtlinge schon ab 2014 immer weiter anstieg, ordnete er das so genannte Fragebogen-Verfahren an: Wer nachweisen oder glaubhaft machen konnte, aus den Bürgerkriegswirren Syriens geflohen zu sein, musste lediglich einen Fragebogen schriftlich ausfüllen. Das reichte für die Anerkennung als Flüchtling. Das Ziel: Weniger Bürokratie, schnellere Asylverfahren.

    Eine Einladung zum Missbrauch, so die Kritiker des Innenministers damals: Der Verdacht: Marokkaner oder Libanesen würden sich als Syrer ausgeben und sich auf diesem Weg Asyl erschleichen. Das Wort von den „Papier-Syrern“ machte die Runde.
    Linkspartei fragte immer wieder nach

    In der Folgezeit hat die Linkspartei im Bundestag immer wieder nachgefragt, ob sich der Vorwurf eigentlich mit Zahlen erhärten lässt. Auch nach den neuesten Angaben des Bundesamts für Migration und Flüchtlinge, die sich auf die ersten drei Quartale des Jahres 2019 beziehen, stellt sich heraus: Es ist fast nie zum befürchteten Missbrauch gekommen. In den allermeisten Fällen, die im genannten Zeitraum überprüft wurden, hat das BAMF die Entscheidung zur Schutzgewährung nach dem Fragebogenverfahren auch nachträglich noch einmal bestätigt. Und zwar in 99,6 Prozent der Fälle.

    BAMF überprüft regelmäßig

    Zum Verständnis: Das BAMF ist gesetzlich verpflichtet, die im Asylverfahren getroffenen Entscheidungen nach drei bis maximal fünf Jahren zu überprüfen. Dabei klärt das Bundesamt, ob Anhaltspunkte vorliegen, die die einst getroffene Entscheidung negativ beeinflussen könnten.

    So überprüft das BAMF im so genannten Widerrufsverfahren, ob Flüchtlinge wieder in ihr Heimatland zurückkehren können, weil die Gründe für ihre Flucht nicht mehr vorliegen. Beim Rücknahmeverfahren wiederum checkt das BAMF, ob der Asylbewerber im Asylverfahren falsche Angaben gemacht hat.
    99,6 Prozent der Entscheidungen waren richtig

    Das Ergebnis in Zahlen: In den ersten drei Quartalen des Jahres 2019 hat das BAMF 45.609 Entscheidungen überprüft, bei denen im Fragebogen Schutz gewährt worden war. In 146 Fällen wurde die Flüchtlingseigenschaft widerrufen oder zurückgenommen, in fünf Fällen wurde der subsidiäre Schutz widerrufen/zurückgenommen und in 26 Fällen wurde das Abschiebeverbot widerrufen/zurückgenommen. In allen anderen Fällen wurde die Entscheidung bestätigt.

    Insgesamt hat das Bundesamt im besagten Zeitraum 82.589 Ladungen ausgesprochen, um anerkannte Flüchtlinge nachträglich noch einmal zu befragen. 75.442 der geladenen Flüchtlinge waren im Fragebogenverfahren anerkannt worden. Viele Befragungen zum Fragebogenverfahren, konkret 50.658, fanden in diesem Zeitraum bereits statt. In den allermeisten Fällen kamen die Flüchtlinge der Aufforderung übrigens nach, sich befragen zu lassen. Nur 20 Mal wurde ein Zwangsgeld angeordnet, weil die Betroffenen ihre Mitwirkungspflicht nicht erfüllt hatten.
    Linkspartei fordert Ende der Widerrufsprüfungen

    Nach Ansicht von Ulla Jelpke, Innenexpertin der Fraktion Die Linke, seien mit der massiven Ausweitung der Widerrufsprüfungen im BAMF völlig falsche Prioritäten gesetzt worden. „Das politisch geschürte Misstrauen gegenüber Schutzsuchenden ist komplett unbegründet, das belegen die Zahlen der Bundesregierung.“ Ihrer Ansicht nach seien die Widerrufsprüfungen „nichts als sinnlose Schikane, wie es sie in fast keinem anderen europäischen Land“ gebe.

    Eine Beendigung dieses flüchtlingsfeindlichen Unfugs würde eine Verunsicherung schutzbedürftiger Flüchtlinge und die immense Ressourcenverschwendung im BAMF gleichermaßen vermeiden, so Jelpke. „Die 800 ausschließlich mit Widerrufsprüfungen Beschäftigten wären weitaus besser zur Qualitätsverbesserung und Verfahrensbeschleunigung im BAMF eingesetzt.“

    #migration #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Allemagne #BAMF #questionnaire #Papier_Syrer #contrôle_migratoire

    https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/hsb/anfrage-syrer-frageboegen-101.html