• « Le soin, c’est la base qui rend la vie possible » : entretien avec LevFem sur les luttes féministes socialistes en Bulgarie

    LevFem, collectif féministe socialiste bulgare né en 2018 en réaction à la vague réactionnaire contre la Convention d’Istanbul, articule dans un même cadre analytique patriarcat, capitalisme et racisme. Cet entretien mené par Burcu Ayan pour la revue féministe turque Çatlakzemin explore les tensions entre féminisme libéral et féminisme socialiste dans la Bulgarie postsocialiste, la séparation préoccupante entre mouvements féministe et syndical, et les résultats d’une enquête sur le travail de care. LevFem plaide pour des politiques publiques de soin redistribuant le fardeau de la reproduction sociale, et défend une solidarité féministe balkanique et internationale ancrée dans l’expérience des « damnés de la terre ». [AN]

    Burcu Ayan : Comment LevFem a-t-il émergé, et quel contexte politique et social a façonné ses débuts ? À ce sujet, comment décririez-vous le paysage plus large de l’organisation féministe en Bulgarie aujourd’hui, et quelles stratégies ou tensions définissent le travail des organisations féministes dans le pays ?

    LevFem est née en 2018 dans un moment très particulier d’essor et de renouveau dans l’histoire du mouvement féministe bulgare. Ce fut l’année durant laquelle nous avons connu une vague réactionnaire massive et bien organisée contre l’adoption de la Convention d’Istanbul [1] (alias « Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur la prévention et la lutte contre la violence à l’égard des femmes et la violence domestique »), que les réactionnaires d’Europe de l’Est ont accusée d’introduire une « idéologie du genre »). Des organisations, des partis et des acteurs politiques religieux et conservateurs menaient cette campagne et, en l’espace de quelques mois seulement, ils ont réussi à faire basculer radicalement le récit public sur la justice de genre, les droits des femmes et les droits des personnes LGBTQI+. La campagne était profondément homophobe, transphobe et misogyne dans sa nature, et s’attaquait spécifiquement à la définition du genre comme construction sociale inscrite dans la Convention d’Istanbul. En conséquence, même la Cour constitutionnelle du pays a déclaré que le genre en Bulgarie est, apparemment, une dichotomie biologique, ce qui rend très difficile de parler de genre, de rôles de genre, de division genrée du travail, de politiques spécifiques au genre, etc. Dans la foulée de cette vague réactionnaire, les droits féministes, et en particulier les droits des personnes LGBTQI+, ont subi une attaque massive ces dernières années, et les vies des personnes queer et trans ont été de plus en plus mises en danger.

    https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2026/03/29/le-soin-cest-la-base-qui-rend-la-vie-possible-

    #feminisme #bulgarie

  • Bulgaria prigione d’Europa. Continua il “lavoro sporco” in vista del Patto migrazione e asilo

    Il Paese segue il modello ungherese basato su detenzione indiscriminata e respingimenti illegali, facendoli passare per “ingressi impediti” o “allontanamenti volontari”. La prassi repressiva non è più una sperimentazione. Reportage dal centro di detenzione per persone straniere di #Lyubimets, e da quello di “accoglienza” ad #Harmanli

    “Dopo aver passato il confine siamo stati per giorni nel bosco. Eravamo in sei e uno di noi stava male. Poi la polizia ci ha trovati e portati in caserma. Tutti tranne uno, respinto in Turchia”. L’uomo, un cittadino marocchino, racconta con calma a tre attivisti che cosa gli è successo nei giorni precedenti.

    Lo scambio avviene in un centro di detenzione per persone straniere a Lyubimets, una piccola città del Sud della Bulgaria, a 15 chilometri dal confine con la Grecia e a 30 dalla frontiera con la Turchia. Altri quattro connazionali lo ascoltano e annuiscono. Ad agosto 2025 il caldo è torrido e le temperature nella struttura sono elevate. Tutti indossano vestiti bianchi e ciabatte verdi, rotte e anche di tre taglie più piccole, consegnate loro all’arrivo nel posto in cui potrebbero essere rinchiusi in detenzione amministrativa per un tempo indefinito, dopo essere entrati irregolarmente in Bulgaria.

    In mano tengono sacchetti con generi alimentari portati dalle attiviste e attivisti italiani che, dopo controlli meticolosi, riescono a entrare nella struttura per incontrarli. Le visite si svolgono all’angolo dell’ingresso di uno degli edifici, sotto la stretta sorveglianza della polizia che difficilmente concede più di quindici minuti. L’interlocutore ha poco più di quarant’anni, gli altri tra i venti e i trenta: “Ora siamo detenuti qui, ma quando esco vorrei proseguire il mio viaggio”. “Verso Nord o verso Sud?”, risponde scherzando l’attivista. Lui sorride: “Nord”.

    Non sarà un viaggio facile. A giugno entra in vigore il nuovo Patto sulla migrazione e l’asilo che prevede un’accelerazione drastica delle procedure di asilo alle frontiere esterne dell’Ue. In attesa delle nuove norme, alcuni Paesi di frontiera stanno già forzando l’attuale sistema comune di asilo, anticipando di fatto il Patto. È successo all’Italia con i centri costruiti in Albania. Accade anche in Bulgaria, dove il trattenimento e i respingimenti sono da tempo al centro della strategia di repressione del fenomeno migratorio. Diverse organizzazioni denunciano come le procedure non rispettino gli standard. Eppure, nonostante regni l’arbitrarietà, il Paese non viene sanzionato dall’Ue, com’è stato per l’Ungheria di Viktor Orbán.

    La gestione delle migrazioni in Bulgaria si muove sul crinale tra legale e illegale, trattando casi simili in modo diverso perché gestiti in modo arbitrario. Oltre alla violazione del diritto d’asilo, queste politiche peggiorano molto le condizioni di vita delle persone: dal respingimento illegale ai problemi igienico-sanitari nei centri, fino alle violenze subite sia nelle zone di confine che nelle strutture del Paese.

    I centri di detenzione per persone migranti, chiamati “special home for temporary accommodation of foreigners” (Shtaf), sono due. Uno è proprio a Lyubimets, dove il filo spinato e alcune torri di controllo circondano la struttura che può arrivare a contenere fino a 660 persone. Ci entrano spesso attivisti e attiviste del Collettivo rotte balcaniche e No name kitchen, che da tempo lavorano sul campo.

    L’altro centro è a #Busmantsi, nella periferia Est di Sofia, e conta 400 posti. Sebbene concepiti come centri di pre-espulsione, gli Shtaf vengono utilizzati anche per la detenzione di persone migranti che non hanno presentato domanda di asilo nelle caserme di confine dove vengono portate per l’identificazione. Secondo l’organizzazione non governativa per i diritti umani Bulgarian Helsinski committee (Bhc) la ragione più comune delle domande di asilo tardive è la mancanza di servizi di interpretariato adeguati. In altre parole, di fronte alla polizia di frontiera i migranti non sarebbero in condizione di capire e quindi tutelare i propri diritti.

    Spesso i detenuti non conoscono il motivo del loro trattenimento e contattare un avvocato non è semplice perché dipende dal buon cuore del funzionario di turno. Il Comitato per la prevenzione della tortura del Consiglio d’Europa (Cpt), nel report sull’ispezione dei luoghi di detenzione per persone straniere in Bulgaria del 2024 ha riportato come, tra le autorità responsabili, sembra ci sia una presunta interpretazione errata delle norme. Infatti, nonostante la legge stabilisca che un richiedente asilo debba essere rilasciato entro sei giorni dall’avvio della sua domanda, la delegazione ha incontrato nei luoghi persone trattenute oltre il tempo prestabilito. Nel rapporto, infatti, si legge che “entrambi gli Shtaf ospitavano richiedenti asilo che vi si trovavano da più di sei giorni. Parte del personale sembrava interpretare la disposizione nel senso che il trasferimento fosse richiesto solo una volta approvata la domanda di asilo”.

    A Busmantsi è stato trattenuto per ben 19 mesi un uomo che chiamiamo Ali, di cui teniamo anonima l’identità per sicurezza. Il suo percorso migratorio è tortuoso, fatto di numerosi e continui tentativi, di cui molti finiti con respingimenti e detenzione. Dopo essere fuggito dalla Siria ha vissuto qualche anno in Turchia, prima di decidere di proseguire il suo viaggio verso l’Europa passando per la Bulgaria, dove è stato privato della libertà per oltre un anno e mezzo. Oggi vive in Olanda dove ha inoltrato una nuova domanda di asilo.

    Ogni giorno parla con la sua famiglia attraverso i social, dalla sua stanza in una struttura per l’accoglienza nei Paesi Bassi. La stessa dalla quale parla delle condizioni degradanti in cui ha vissuto a lungo in Bulgaria: “Eravamo 60 persone in una stanza. I materassi erano pieni di insetti e di notte non potevamo andare in bagno. Le persone erano costrette a fare i propri bisogni lì, in un angolo”.

    Prima del suo arresto Ali ha attraversato la frontiera tra Bulgaria e Turchia più volte. La rotta che ha percorso attraversa i boschi che ricoprono i monti Strandzha e Sakar, dove il confine è segnato da una recinzione lunga circa 200 chilometri. Una volta oltrepassata si è costretti a camminare nella foresta per giorni. È un luogo inospitale, soprattutto d’inverno, in cui si rischia la vita per congelamento oltre che per disidratazione o malnutrizione.

    Percorrendo in auto le lunghe strade nell’area vicina alla frontiera, costeggiate da alberi alti, non si incontrano molte altre macchine. La maggior parte dei mezzi in circolazione sono i Defender della polizia di frontiera bulgara: negli ultimi anni i controlli sono stati irrigiditi. In particolare dal 2025, anno in cui il Paese è entrato nell’area Schengen, l’area è pattugliata anche dagli agenti di Frontex. Se chi migra sopravvive al bosco, c’è il pericolo che venga fermato dalla polizia di frontiera e venga respinto illegalmente. Così è successo ad Ali tre volte, prima di riuscire a rimanere sul territorio bulgaro: “Ho camminato nel bosco per sette giorni, ero insieme ad altre 40 persone. Molti di noi sono stati arrestati e solo dopo giorni sono riuscito a scoprire che la mia famiglia era stata respinta”. Tuttora i suoi familiari sono bloccati in Turchia.

    “Le persone vengono respinte verso il Paese da cui sono entrati senza procedure formali di rimpatrio o riammissione”, spiega Iliana Savova, direttrice del programma legale per rifugiati e migranti del Bhc. Questa pratica, documentata da tempo, viene negata dal governo bulgaro che con un escamotage dialettico parla di “ingressi impediti”. Secondo i dati resi pubblici da Sofia, nel 2024 sarebbero stati 52.534. Nello stesso anno il Bhc ha registrato 43.282 casi di respingimenti illegali, dimostrando che quelli definiti come ingressi impediti coincidano nei numeri e quindi siano, in realtà, veri e propri pushback.

    Benché il flusso verso il Paese sia diminuito, il tasso degli arresti in Bulgaria è alto: “La percentuale di migranti irregolari arrestati al confine con la Turchia è aumentata del 41% (tra il 2023 e il 2024, ndr). Dal 2014, per dieci anni consecutivi, queste percentuali sono state basse […] poiché la maggior parte di coloro che cercavano di entrare è stata respinta”, sottolinea l’associazione, citando dati del ministero dell’interno bulgaro, a oggi tuttavia non disponibili.

    I dati sull’aumento degli arresti, se letti contestualmente alla diminuzione dei respingimenti, vanno delineando un diverso approccio da parte delle autorità bulgare in linea con la volontà di confinamento dei richiedenti asilo ai margini del continente. Proprio come sancito dal Patto migrazioni e asilo. Questa strategia spiegherebbe anche l’allargamento del centro di Lyubimets, che non troverebbe giustificazione nei numeri degli ingressi.

    Dopo la visita alle persone detenute, gli attivisti e le attiviste recuperano i propri documenti, lasciati ai funzionari prima dell’ingresso. L’enorme portone telecomandato si apre e, una volta usciti dallo Shtaf, la prima cosa che appare è una porta identica a quella appena lasciata alle spalle. Proprio lì, infatti, sta sorgendo un nuovo complesso, accanto a quello esistente. L’area è già avvolta dal muretto bianco e da più linee di filo spinato. Dall’altra parte del muro una dozzina di container sono pronti a ospitare oltre 500 persone, numero che quasi raddoppierebbe le cifre della struttura oggi attiva. Con l’entrata in vigore del Patto si capirà quanto un piccolo centro del Sud della Bulgaria potrà essere strategico nell’imporre le nuove politiche europee sui migranti.

    https://altreconomia.it/bulgaria-prigione-deuropa-continua-il-lavoro-sporco-in-vista-del-patto-
    #Bulgarie #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #refoulements #push-backs #rétention #détention_administrative #special_home_for_temporary_accommodation_of_foreigners (#Shtaf)

  • Seven miles from Sofia, Bulgaria’s capital, this former military barracks houses hundreds of migrants.

    The smell of Busmantsi’s “special home for foreigners” is indescribable, but if you had to use words they would be some combination of stale urine, mildew, dried sweat and rot. Thirty people are packed into each cell, which guards lock at 10 p.m. and don’t open again until 7 a.m. The rooms do not contain toilets, so at night men urinate out the window. There is no running water, so those with flu or food poisoning vomit into plastic bags. Some men hang sheets around their beds in a gesture toward privacy, but in the corner is a camera, with its telltale red eye.

    Occasionally, a few of the men housed in this former military barracks seven miles from Bulgaria’s capitol, Sofia, are brought to a small room, where officials from the Bulgarian police and the European Union border police, called Frontex, are waiting. There are no lawyers present. The officials tell them they can leave if they sign an agreement to return to their home countries — Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. If they don’t, they will be locked up for a year and a half. At first, most refuse to sign, but it is hard to hold onto sanity in a Bulgarian cell when you have not committed a crime, so occasionally men sign, and a week or so later, they are gone. Those inside rarely hear from them again.

    Some, though, decide to hold out for the full 18 months, after which most will be released and allowed to remain in Bulgaria; many hope they’ll be able to move on from there. Hesham, a Syrian with honey brown hair and a shy smile who arrived last spring, was among 100 or so men who had chosen to wait. Just a few months earlier, he had been living in a town in southern Germany, learning the language and dreaming of returning to his job as a tailor. But when he arrived for an appointment at the local immigration office in Saxony-Anhalt last February, the police arrested him, detained him for weeks at the Munich airport, then deported him to Sofia.

    “I want to file a lawsuit against the prison here,” Hesham wrote me on WhatsApp in early June. “Do you know anything about this?”

    I began speaking with Hesham last May. We were connected by Astrid Schreiber, an advocate with the Munich Refugee Council, who met him in Munich’s detention complex. Soon I was texting with or speaking to a dozen detainees from Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, Gaza and Syria, most of whom had been deported from Germany and other E.U. countries.

    One man wrote that German police raided his house in the middle of the night. He said that he fled but was chased by dogs and surrendered in a forest. “They grabbed me by the feet while my hands were tied, and they dragged me like an animal,” he said.

    Another man wrote: “They are threatening to deport me to Iraq. Here I have scabies and there is no treatment. The situation is very bad, beyond imagination.”

    No phones with cameras are allowed inside Busmantsi, which meant that most of the detainees did not have phones. Those who did shared them, sometimes charging a small fee for access. The detainees told me that they awoke each morning with rosy bedbug bites across their arms and legs. They tried spraying the dirty mattresses with local chemical products that promised to eradicate insects, but it never worked, or at least not for long. Three times a day, they filed to the cafeteria for colorless meals. Breakfast was white bread. A typical lunch was one chicken wing and some cabbage; dinner was boiled potatoes, bread, an apple. They were offered no education, Bulgarian language classes or any chance to earn money.

    Not long after I began texting with Hesham, my messages stopped going through. I also lost touch with two other men, an Algerian and an Iraqi, who had been deported from Germany. One detainee told me they had signed the papers to return to their home countries. Hesham, it turned out, was still inside. The prison guards had confiscated his phone, and I could now reach him only through an intermediary.

    Detention centers like the one where Hesham is held form a kind of demarcation line along the bloc’s external borders. There can be as many as 1,060 people locked up in Bulgaria’s two sites: Busmantsi, in Sofia, and Lyubimets, in the south. There are centers on the idyllic Greek islands Samos, Lesbos, Khíos, Leros and Kos, as well as on the tiny Italian island Lampedusa and the volcanic landmass of Sicily. These are difficult to visit and sealed off from the public. Unless you work there or know someone detained there, they are largely invisible. “Most tourists don’t even know there is a detention center,” Robert Nestler, a German asylum lawyer who frequently visits Kos, told me. “It is at the end of the world.”

    But if detention sites like Busmantsi sit at the margins of Europe geographically, they are increasingly central to the European Union’s immigration policies. Following the 2015 influx of 1.3 million refugees, mostly Syrians fleeing war, Brussels began to restrict migration, pushing border management and asylum processing to the bloc’s farthest edges. Billions of euros were also funneled to neighboring countries to prevent onward migration to the European Union, resulting in detention sites in Libya that are run by militias and mass deportations from Turkey. Now the most restrictive asylum policies in the bloc’s history are unfolding inside its borders. The Pact on Migration and Asylum, finalized by Brussels in 2024 and coming into full effect later this year, expands detention, including for children, and speeds up deportations.

    Western European countries are now capitalizing on an E.U. law that requires refugees to apply for asylum in the first country they enter; those who instead leave for another member country can be sent back to the E.U. nation where they first arrived. This regulation has long been controversial, says Catherine Woollard, the former director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, because it places “huge responsibility on the countries at the borders.”

    Refugees deported to Bulgaria find themselves trapped in a country that does not want them. Bulgaria has low asylum-recognition rates and has lacked an official integration program for the past 13 years. Migrants have died on Bulgarian territory after authorities failed to prioritize their rescues: In December 2024, three Egyptian teenage boys froze to death in the snowy southern woods. Those who enter from Turkey are often assaulted by border guards and violently pushed back, as both Frontex and human rights organizations have documented. Nonetheless, Germany, one of the bloc’s wealthiest states, is on track to deport five times as many people to Bulgaria, its poorest, as it did in 2022.

    The conditions in Bulgaria’s detention sites and abuses along the border have been largely ignored by the European Union. Instead, Bulgaria has become a kind of testing ground for the future of European migration — a heavily patrolled border, fast deportations and policies that encourage, or even coerce, refugees to leave.

    I first entered Busmantsi in late August, along with an acquaintance who was visiting a Palestinian refugee from Gaza. As we approached in a taxi, two four-story concrete blocks loomed behind a high wall topped with barbed wire. It was easy to see how Busmantsi served as a stand-in for a West Virginia penitentiary in the 2009 Hollywood slasher “Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead.” Near the gated entrance hung two signs highlighting six million euros in E.U. funding.

    We passed through two gates and entered a concrete courtyard. On the left was a smaller building managed by the State Agency for Refugees, which then housed people with pending asylum claims, including families with children. On the right was the Interior Ministry section, which typically holds those whose asylum claims have been denied. This is where Hesham was kept. At least a dozen men clustered around the windows, waving their hands frantically through the bars. “Hello!” they shouted. “How are you?”

    The Bulgarian government claims that Busmantsi has the capacity to hold 400 people, but it depends on how you define capacity. In the summer, a Turkish woman fleeing domestic violence was forced to stay in the male section for almost three months, sharing a bedroom and showers with 20 men. Time spent in the outdoor courtyard is restricted to 30 minutes a day, including for children. People with severe mental-health conditions are isolated.

    The center does not have translators, and the Bulgarian staff do not speak Arabic, Pashto, Dari or French; it falls on the detainees to translate for one another. When an Afghan man was locked in a room alone, the Arabic speakers on his floor struggled to communicate with him. Still, they pleaded with the guards to unlock his door so he could use the bathroom; some five days later, the guards complied. Another man arrived at Busmantsi with both legs amputated. The other detainees carried him around. (Site-visit reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment have extensively documented conditions inside Busmantsi and refer to the center as “prisonlike.”)

    “What should I do?” Hisham wrote to me on WhatsApp when we first began chatting. “I can’t go to Syria because my house is completely destroyed.”

    It was not the first time Hesham had found himself locked up in Busmantsi. Through WhatsApp phone calls, legal documents and interviews with his sister and advocates, I pieced together how he ended up there three times in the space of two years.

    Hesham first entered Bulgaria in September 2023, when he was in his early 20s, crossing the southern land border from Turkey. Conditions for Syrian refugees in Turkey worsened after the country agreed to seal its borders following a deal with the European Union that included six billion euros in aid. A decade earlier, at the beginning of the Syrian civil war, his father, a farmer who was not politically active, was arrested at a government checkpoint. He never returned home. A year into his absence, Hesham, then 14, left Damascus for Istanbul, where he lived for eight years. Two of Hesham’s sisters also fled Syria, one settling in Germany and the other in Oman. Hesham’s mother and younger brother remained behind.

    When Hesham arrived in Sofia, he went first to Tsar Simeon Street, locally referred to as Arab Street for the many Middle Eastern shops there, to purchase goods for his onward journey. Then the police arrived. They arrested Hesham for illegally entering the country and took him to Busmantsi. After a week, an NGO came with a translator and told him he could either request asylum or remain confined for 18 months. As an asylum seeker, he would be released from detention in a week or so. Hesham immediately applied. He needed to reach his older sister in Germany, whom he had not seen in 11 years.

    In preparation for his release, Hesham was asked to roll his fingers across the glassy surface of a portable biometric machine, which uploads fingerprints from every asylum seeker into an E.U. database called Eurodac. This allows a government in one country to check whether someone’s fingerprints were originally taken in another. The E.U.-wide system began in 2003 and has been rapidly expanding, part of a renewed effort to track asylum seekers and other migrants through biometrics.

    The authorities dropped Hesham at Vrazhdebna Camp, one of three open facilities in Sofia where asylum seekers receive a bed and meals as their claims are processed. Vrazhdebna means “hostile” in Bulgarian; the area surrounding the camp on the city outskirts bears the same name. Guards with guns patrol the inside. Here, as in facilities in Greece, residents have a curfew and cannot have visitors. “I’d go to Germany if I were you,” an employee told Hesham, who left the next day. Hesham traversed Serbia, the Czech Republic and Austria, entering Germany a few weeks later.

    After reaching Saxony-Anhalt, where his sister lives, Hesham went straight to the police and requested asylum. The officers confiscated his phone; he never got it back. Hesham was initially assigned to Halberstadt Camp, north of the Harz Mountain range, near his sister, who barely recognized the adult version of her brother. At dinner, she served plates of kibbe, stuffed zucchinis, rice with dumplings, food from their childhoods, while her 4-year-old daughter giggled and stared.

    Hesham threw himself into studying German. A local Amazon warehouse offered to hire him once his papers came through. A possible future took shape, though he dared not hold onto any one vision for too long. The memory of giving his fingerprints to the officials inside Busmantsi played on a loop. To quiet the fear of being sent back, he focused on his family. In a photo from those months of waiting, Hesham grins, holding his niece as she makes a peace sign with tiny fingers.

    Hesham had come to Germany at the wrong time. “We are limiting irregular migration to Germany,” the chancellor at the time, Olaf Scholz, told the magazine Der Spiegel a few months before Hesham arrived. “Too many people are coming,” he said, adding, “We have to deport people more often and faster.”

    After four months in Germany, Hesham received notice that he would be deported to Sofia. The police arrest refugees in the middle of the night so they cannot flee. Hesham spent several months couch-surfing with friends, hoping he could wait out the order. In January 2025, the police found him and put him on a commercial flight to Sofia. Once aboard, Hesham protested that he didn’t wish to return and the pilot refused to take off. The authorities released him, and Hesham went back into hiding. Two weeks later, when he went to renew his ID card at the local immigration office, the police were waiting. They did not let him pack a bag or pick up his belongings. After Hesham was captured, his sister cried for a week. She told her daughter that Hesham had gone on a long trip.

    Deportations are difficult for the German government to execute. They require an agreement with the receiving country, as well as infrastructure — detention facilities, extra police officers, arrangements with commercial airlines or private carriers — that the United States has built up over two decades. Deportations are humiliating and sometimes violent. Some men are subjected to airport strip and body-cavity searches. Deportees are sometimes handcuffed and shackled; some are restrained with belts. Pilots have at times refused to fly, as happened with Hesham, after realizing refugees are onboard against their will, resulting in 342 canceled flights in 2024 alone.

    When deporting refugees to other E.U. countries, German courts must consider appeals on several grounds: whether sending someone back would cause serious harm or lead to torture; whether the person has certain family ties in Germany or serious medical conditions. Refugees are often not deported to Greece, because mistreatment there has been well documented. Conditions in Bulgaria are less well known. “Almost all of them are sent back, regardless of what happened to them in Bulgaria,” says Stephan Reichel, who coordinates church asylum in Germany.

    In 2024, the German government submitted some 75,000 deportation requests to other E.U. countries, but little more than half were approved; only 5,740 individuals were deported within the bloc. Chancellor Frederich Merz has vowed to close that gap. Germany has poured millions of euros into building detention centers. Four deportation centers opened this year; one near the Polish border can house 250 people.

    The day of Hesham’s deportation in late February, the police came before the sun rose. The officials that day were respectful. He was not handcuffed. He was given food and water. In the end, there were only four other passengers, three Syrians and one Afghan, all men, flying to Sofia on a private plane. The shame colored everything. “It was one of the worst days of my life,” Hesham told me later.

    Upon arrival in Sofia, the Bulgarian authorities took Hesham to Busmantsi. It would be harder to leave this time. Bulgaria had long served as a transit country for refugees heading north, but it remained shut out of the full rights afforded E.U. members for failing to control immigration. So it began violently policing its borders. In 2025, after scaling up detention and tightening border security, it was finally admitted to the Schengen Area, which allows freedom of movement among member states. To assist its operations, the European Union has, over the past decade, granted the country hundreds of millions of euros for additional immigration control. Under the pact, Bulgaria has also received 90 million euros; the interior ministry is creating two new detention centers and expanding Busmantsi and Lyubimets.

    At Busmantsi, Hesham was informed that his asylum file was closed. Hesham lodged a new claim and after a month was transferred back to Vrazhdebna Camp. During his asylum interview, he suspected that his translator was not interpreting correctly, but he had no way to prove it, just a bad feeling. A rejection came two months later; it stated that Hesham had migrated for economic reasons. It was true that Hesham wanted, desperately, to start working, but his main reason for leaving Syria was fear for his safety. After Hesham’s father was abducted, his family’s house was bombed.

    Under Bulgarian law, you can appeal an asylum rejection twice. Hesham needed a lawyer to file an appeal within 14 days. At the time, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee had been contracted by international organizations and the Bulgarian government to provide legal aid to asylum seekers; a tall, thin man with glasses told Hesham he would process his paperwork. The committee does not give out private contact details for its lawyers, and all Hesham had was a generic email address. He did not even know the lawyer’s name. A few weeks later, some officials came to the camp and asked residents for their IDs. When they saw Hesham’s, they took his residency permit away and told him to report to the camp office. Inside, the officials locked the door. Then the police arrived. They arrested Hesham and drove him back to Busmantsi.

    A few days later, Hesham saw his lawyer by chance in a meeting room set aside for legal-aid consultations. “Why didn’t you file my appeal?” Hesham demanded. The man, Hesham told me, said “he forgot.” Hesham was in disbelief: “How can you call yourself a lawyer? How could you forget?” Hesham recalled that the man became agitated and began speaking in Bulgarian. Hesham walked out. (The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee denies any involvement in the case.)

    From his cell, Hesham searched for a private lawyer in Sofia. One wanted a minimum of 1,500 euros. He didn’t have the money. Hesham had only one friend in Sofia, a fellow Syrian who brought him some clean T-shirts and socks.

    After his deportation, Hesham appealed his case in Germany, but as time went on, it seemed unlikely a court would allow him to return. Schreiber, the advocate with the Munich Refugee Council, told me that the only person she knew who had been allowed back into Germany was an elderly Syrian woman receiving cancer treatment. Although a German court ruled the deportation illegal, she had to pay for her return flight.

    One of the hardest things for Hesham about life in Busmantsi was the waiting. He had nothing to fill his days and longed to return to his work as a tailor. As a boy, he spent hours after school in a Damascus factory, slicing shapes with an electric blade. Each fabric had a different feel. Hesham loved black velvet, with its density and plushness, the most. In Istanbul, he had designed suits and dresses, sharing the drawings with his sister. Now the future was a blank, dreamless space.

    He found it impossible to escape the almost casual violence that he and the men I spoke with regularly witnessed. One day, a group of guards dragged the Afghan man from solitary confinement and beat him with an iron rod. Another man was punched in the face. Detainees told me that the guards knew where there were missing surveillance cameras — near the laundry room, for instance — and assaulted people there. Last year, a Syrian man in his mid-30s named Ahmad was locked inside Busmantsi, even though he had a valid German residence permit, making it legal for him to travel. Ahmad, who suffers from psychosis, was put in solitary confinement. His sister told me that the guards beat him so brutally after he resisted his deportation that he could not walk for five days. (The Bulgarian Interior Ministry, which oversees the Migration Directorate that runs Busmantsi and other centers, declined to comment on individual cases, and the Migration Directorate did not respond to a request for comment.)

    Medical care inside Busmantsi is either inadequate or absent. In 2021, an 83-year-old Armenian woman was brought to Busmantsi; she died five hours later from heart failure. A review by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture found a pattern of factually inaccurate medical information. All the recorded vitals of detainees were the same. All the medical intake forms said “no complaints” and “language barriers.”

    The longer someone stayed inside Busmantsi, the more reality deteriorated. “People in the cell have told me I cry in my sleep,” Hesham said. Visits are limited to 30 minutes, but many inmates never had a visitor. Some of the people isolated for mental-health conditions had not arrived that way. Suicidal ideation is common in immigration detention facilities around the world, increasing in proportion to the length of time detained, but no one wanted to speak on the record for fear it would harm their chances of release.

    A week after I first visited Busmantsi, I arrived for my appointment with Hesham. I pushed the doorbell at the designated time, hearing a sharp chime on the other side. Some five minutes later, the door swung open into a courtyard surrounded by tall metal walls. This time I noticed the U.N. Refugee Agency registration sign that hung near the entrance. Under the list of rules was: “You do not have the right to choose the European country where you want to live and receive international protection.”

    I was ushered into a ground-floor room that functioned as a visitors’ center. At last, Hesham appeared. Dressed in an oversize purple T-shirt, with a few pimples on his cheeks and wispy facial hair, he could have been a sleep-deprived graduate student. A female guard eyed us from the corner. On the wall were Frontex posters. “Thinking of returning home?” read one, beneath which was a telephone number. “Returning home might be difficult, but a counselor can help you,” another read. From January to September 2025, Frontex sent its “return specialists” to conduct 744 meetings with detainees, a spokesman told me.

    Since Hesham and I first made contact, the guards had yanked him out of his cell three times and put him in the room where we were now sitting. Officials pressured him to return to Damascus, once kicking him in the leg, he said. The authorities slid across a document in Bulgarian and told him to sign. He declined. Tacked to a corkboard on the back wall was a Frontex notice on how to file a complaint.

    I asked if he had more to say about the detention conditions. “You’ve already seen it yourself,” Hesham said, gesturing to the room. He pressed his thumb to his lip as if quieting himself. “I don’t need to say anything more.” In the corner, the guard tilted her head and snapped a selfie.

    Under the European Union’s new migration pact, it has become easier for governments to detain asylum seekers, like holding anyone deemed a national security risk or a threat to public order. According to Diana Radoslavova, who founded the Center for Legal Aid — Voice in Bulgaria in 2009, this will only render the situations many refugees already find themselves in more precarious. One of her clients, Adbulrahman al-Khalidi, a Saudi human rights activist, entered Bulgaria seeking asylum. Though his case is still open, he has been held in Busmantsi for more than four years, well beyond the legal limit, because Bulgaria’s national security agency labeled him a threat. The authorities have bounced al-Khalidi between the refugee agency and the Interior Ministry section of the facility, threatening to deport him to Saudi Arabia. A Sofia court has ordered him released three times; each time, the Bulgarian government has refused. The Bulgarian ombudsman stated that it would be best if another European country, like France or Germany, gave al-Khalidi asylum. So far none has offered.

    When it comes to people like Hesham, the biggest question is the misuse of detention, Radoslavova said. The use of detention in the absence of active removal proceedings violates E.U. law, and under Bulgarian law, rejected asylum seekers can only be detained for the purpose of deportation for 18 months. But Bulgaria cannot force Syrians to return to their home countries, because it has no agreement with the government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa. “If you know that this person cannot be forcibly returned,” she said, “why do you detain them for 18 months?”

    Once people with rejected asylum claims are released from Busmantsi, they have no access to health care, subsidized housing or social services. Over the past year, Radoslavova has been contacted frequently by German advocates, dismayed to find that clients deported to Bulgaria are destitute. Families have difficulty enrolling their children in school or finding a place to live. When I asked the German Interior Ministry if it had considered halting deportations to Bulgaria because of conditions there, a spokeswoman referred me to the Bulgarian government.

    Daniel Mitov, Bulgaria’s interior minister, defended the lack of alternatives to detention. He told me that if asylum seekers were free, they would head north, and then other European countries would call and say: “Well, you have allowed these individuals to cross illegally through your territory. Now we’re going to get them back to you, and it’s your problem.” Mitov pointed out that the border between Bulgaria and Turkey was the second-busiest in the world, after the U.S.-Mexico border. The European Union has sent hundreds of Frontex police officers to assist local forces and piloted a new surveillance system with drones. Even the Americans, Mitov said, were helping the Bulgarian border police: The Interior Ministry coordinated its efforts with the U.S. Embassy and Washington. Bulgaria shares the biometrics of people who enter the country illegally with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the biometrics are run through databases at the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and Department of Defense. (The State Department spokesman in Sofia confirmed that the United States shares equipment, training and advice with Bulgaria, calling it a “close and effective relationship” on border operations).

    As for the conditions inside Busmantsi, Mitov blamed the refugees. “Quite often, the people who stay there do not appreciate the environment,” he remarked dryly. “You’re saying that people staying inside damage the facility?” I asked. “Yes,” he said. “The human traffickers are giving them advice to treat the facilities in ways that afterward they can complain.”

    Across the European Union, Ukrainians have been received very differently from Syrians, Afghans and others. In 2022, as Ukrainians fled Russian bombs, the Bulgarian government rented empty hotels along the Black Sea to house them. The bloc contributed money for private housing and language classes. Kiril Petkov, then the prime minister, explained the government’s logic: “These people are Europeans,” he told journalists. “These people are intelligent. They are educated people.” He added: “This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could even have been terrorists.”

    As the migration pact comes into full force this summer, countries will have even more flexibility in how they treat those seeking asylum. One provision relies on what is known as the legal fiction of “non-entry”: states can claim someone is not on European territory despite having crossed the border, creating liminal spaces where they can argue that E.U. law does not apply. Those interviewed and rejected for asylum in these borderlands are no longer guaranteed legal representation.

    In late October, Busmantsi guards notified Hesham and some 80 other detainees — mostly Syrian and Moroccan men — that they would be moved to the Lyubimets detention center, just 18 miles from the Turkish border. They did not tell them why. Hesham packed his few belongings and traveled three hours south by bus. A few days later, a delegation from the European Commission toured an almost empty Busmantsi to see if it met E.U. standards. Abdulrahman, who later requested to be transferred to Lyubimets, spoke with members of the mission, as Bulgarian officials hovered nearby.

    In Lyubimets, a vast facility that includes accommodation in metal shipping containers, the food was still inedible, but the room that Hesham shared with 20 men was cleaner. Hesham and the others were more isolated, though, because it was harder to receive visitors from Sofia. After two weeks, officials called Hesham into a room and told him they were offering 150 euros for him to return to Syria, promising another 700 euros upon arrival.

    Hesham refused. Every week, when his mother called, she begged him to come home, but he didn’t think Syria was a country he could live in yet. After the fall of the Assad regime, some prisoners were released, but there was no information about Hesham’s father, one of many men who were still missing.

    On Jan. 1, Hesham turned 27. As one day of confinement followed another, Hesham thought back to advice his father had given him, encouraging him to study. He was a feisty kid, not as interested in school as his sisters, who pursued degrees in law and chemistry. Hesham was sorry that he hadn’t yet lived up to his father’s vision. Maybe there was still time. If he could make it 11 more months, he would be free by his next birthday — but what that freedom would look like remained uncertain.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/magazine/immigration-detention-europe-busmantsi-bulgaria.html
    #Bulgarie #migrations #réfugiés #enfermement #hébergement #baraques #Sofia #Busmantsi #renvois #expulsions
    via @fil

  • American AI Arrives on Fortress Europe’s Borders. At What Cost ?

    Critics say emerging age estimation and surveillance technologies are putting human rights at risk.

    #Shield_AI’s headquarters are situated in a tall glass building along a wide boulevard in San Diego, a world away from where its tech, dreamed up in the sun-washed streets of California, has been tested above the Bulgarian forests. For asylum seekers trying to cross from Turkey to Bulgaria — and into the European Union — there is a good chance that in the future they may encounter one of the company’s surveillance drones.

    Shield AI was founded as a startup in 2015 by Andrew Reiter and brothers Ryan and Brandon Tseng. The company is now valued at around $5 billion. It claims that during its participation in a 60-day pilot at the border in August — coordinated with Frontex, the EU border agency — “both irregular border crossings and criminal activity” saw a “significant reduction” thanks to the use of its vertical-take-off (or V-BAT) drones. How this was achieved remains unclear. The drones include an onboard AI pilot that enables a fully autonomous flight even without GPS. Frontex agreed there had been a reduction in crossings, although neither Frontex nor Shield AI would say what the precise percentage is. Shield AI is active across Europe and has sold these drones to other EU states, including Greece and the Netherlands. The company also has a lucrative $198 million contract with the US Coast Guard announced in 2024.

    A new joint investigation by Inkstick, Solomon, Taz, and SWI Swiss Info reveals how new technology is rolled out across Europe to deter irregular migration and handle asylum claims, often with little scrutiny and thin safeguards, that can affect even underage refugees. It also shows how the EU is increasingly moving towards “smart” border control solutions, which either use or have the potential to use artificial intelligence — despite officials downplaying or hiding this trend behind less ominous terms like “algorithms.”

    The Bulgarian trial, according to two officials present at a closed-door meeting in Warsaw in September 2025, was part of an “Innovation” presentation. Featured on the screen was a drone-based surveillance network piloted under a Frontex contract. Assets tested included V-BAT drones that hovered along Bulgaria’s border with Turkey, streaming real-time video to a command center and flagging movements to operators.

    Bulgaria is among a number of European countries accused of systematically violating the rights of asylum seekers. Shield AI did not respond to requests for comment on the system, its deployment, costs, or data use. Frontex, in a written response, said that the “preventative” effect of the Bulgarian pilot was an “indirect outcome” and was conducted under a “research and innovation pilot, which includes comprehensive fundamental-rights safeguards.”

    The European Commission has said that research pilots remain outside of the full legal framework. Dr. Niovi Vavoula, an Associate Professor and Chair in Cyber Policy at the University of Luxembourg, told the investigation that such exceptions are merely semantic once these systems are tested on real people, “we are past the purely testing research phase.” She added that any research exceptions “shouldn’t be applicable.”

    From the beginning of people’s attempts to reach Europe, often aboard overpacked, flimsy vessels leaving from Libya, aerial assets sold by defense companies and deployed on behalf of European states and agencies buzz above their heads.

    Along the voyage, an array of Israeli tech could be monitoring their movements, from Israel’s IAI’s Heron surveillance drones leased to Frontex for Mediterranean patrols to Elbit Systems’ Hermes 900 drones (used in the skies of Gaza since 2014) used on unarmed EU maritime patrol missions. In 2025, Frontex renewed the IAI-made Heron 1 drone for another four years.

    If people make it to European soil alive — thousands do not — they frequently try to leave countries of first-arrival like Greece and reach wealthier nations such as Germany, where living conditions and prospects of employment seem better. In the reeds of northern Greece, according to border officials who spoke to the investigation, the movement of storks often gives away the positions of migrants hoping to do just this; soon a series of sophisticated tech will take over from nature’s watchmen.

    Public announcements, internal minutes, and technical documents reviewed by this investigation detail plans for the deployment of Mobile Incident-Management Centers (MIMCs) in the country’s northern border, the main exit route for migrants trying to reach Northern Europe. All-terrain vehicles will be equipped with thermal cameras, drones, and encrypted comms, working alongside new fixed surveillance structures feeding live video and alerts into central control hubs and command posts.

    For those who make it from southern Europe all the way to its tip in northern France and the beaches around the city of Calais, refugees might come into contact with even more American technology invested in monitoring their movements.

    Anduril Industries (one of several American defense companies borrowing its name from the Lord of the Rings franchise) has a role to play in monitoring asylum seekers being crammed onto smugglers’ overcrowded boats to cross the English Channel, the stretch of water between France and the southern coast of England and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Founded by Donald Trump supporter Palmer Luckey in 2017, Anduril is now valued at over $30.5 billion.

    In a recent investigation, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism laid bare the breadth of the company’s lobbying activities in the UK, including the hiring of at least 11 former defense ministry staff. Anduril has sold a number of “Sentry Towers” to the UK Home Office, similar to those along the US-Mexico border. The towers monitor migrant crossings and use the company’s “Lattice” AI system. They are shrouded in secrecy, with the British government often refusing to release precise details about their number, positions on the southeast coast, or contracts. Previous freedom of information requests filed by researchers have revealed the Home Office has paid over £16 million (around $21.2 million) for a three-year period for one of these contracts,

    Anduril’s expansion into Britain reflects a broader trend: US companies are increasingly supplying not only border hardware but also the AI tools that shape asylum decisions. This investigation has obtained the names of seven companies involved in a controversial trial run by the UK Home Office, which plans to use AI to estimate the age of newly arrived migrants. The Home Office claims that Facial Age Estimation AI, a process in which an individual’s age is determined by comparing their facial biometrics to a large dataset of faces with known ages, “offers a potentially rapid and simple means” to verify someone’s age.

    Molly Buckley from the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that the organization has concerns over the technology, including reports of its accuracy levels. “When used for age estimation, facial scanning is often inaccurate. It’s in the name: age estimation,” she said. Buckley explained that every form of face-scanning technology has an error rate, which means some adults will be deemed minors and vice versa, with limited options for recourse. “Age estimation is also discriminatory. Studies show face scans are more likely to err in estimating the age of people of color and women, which means that as a tool of age verification, these face scans will have an unfair disparate impact on the human rights of people seeking asylum.”

    Three of the seven companies involved in this trial are American, including Trust Stamp, a Georgia-based company that bills itself as an “AI-powered identity verification.” Trust Stamp had a controversial contract with ICE, which was terminated in 2022. Although no link was made public, the company had suffered a significant data breach of its migrant-tracking app used by ICE earlier in the year. Aware Inc and Paravision AI, both similarly headquartered in the US, have had their software used by multiple US government bodies, including the FBI and the US Air Force. None of those involved in the trial appear to have ever had their facial age estimation technology used on asylum seekers. Aware Inc, Paravision AI, and Trust Stamp did not respond to request for comment.

    The Home Office did not provide answers to a lengthy list of questions about whether a human-rights impact assessment had been completed, about which experts had been consulted, or about any further details of the implementation process. In a statement, it insisted that “robust age assessments are a vital tool in maintaining border security,” with a reported plan to integrate it into systems in 2026.

    Child protection advocates, meanwhile, say these assurances fall far short of addressing the lived consequences for young people misidentified by automated systems. Maddie Harris from the Humans for Rights Network said that “introducing facial age estimation does nothing to address this significant safeguarding issue of determining children to be adults and placing them in unsafe settings exposed to acute harm.” Harris added, “Our concerns include the ability for a child to consent to an AI age check, inherent racial bias and the data the tool will have access to reach its decision on a person’s age.”

    Harris questioned how such technology will adequately take into account “the complexities of human life, including long and traumatic journeys to the UK, and how our experiences manifest in our faces and bodies.”

    Age estimation is not the only area where American-made AI is being inserted into asylum decision-making. Foxglove, a nonprofit that litigates and advocates for “fairer tech,” shared its submission to the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights ​​and the Regulation of AI. The submission flags concerns about three AI tools used or tested by the Home Office, including the proposed facial age assessment as well as one to auto-summarize asylum interview transcript and another to condense and summarize country information for asylum decision-makers.

    The nonprofit says it has confirmed that the transcript-summarizing tool is based on San Francisco based OpenAI’s GPT-4. The tendency of such models to “hallucinate,” or to produce false but plausible results, is well documented, Foxglove said. In trials, from the Home Office’s own admission, 9% of summaries were reportedly so inaccurate or incomplete they were unusable.

    Foxglove’s Donald Campbell said it is “surprising” the Home Office calls that “a small proportion.” With tens of thousands of asylum claims a year, he explained, such an error rate could affect thousands of cases if scaled up.

    “It is hard to see how unleashing these dangerously unreliable tools on some of the most vulnerable people — including child refugees — is anything other than a recipe for disaster,” Campbell added. “At the very least, the Home Office should be providing a higher level of transparency and accountability, to ensure that errors and harms are rapidly identified. Instead it is refusing to release even minimal information on the risk assessments it has undertaken. This secrecy suggests the Home Office knows the tools come with significant, known risks, but is determined to push on regardless.”

    The EFF’s Buckley agreed. “By definition, asylum seekers have an increased need for privacy and protection. To force them to hand over their most sensitive data to UK authorities and AI companies as soon as they reach UK shores raises significant concerns. Where does that biometric data go, and who is it shared with? Can it be purchased, used by law enforcement, or stolen by bad actors — either in the UK or in the country they’re fleeing? Deploying this unreliable, discriminatory, and dangerous surveillance technology at the border just to save a few pounds creates massive risks to the human rights, safety, and well-being of asylum seekers.”

    The tendency to downplay or reframe AI use is mirrored in how authorities describe the role of the technology within decision-making processes. The UK Home Office, for example, has said that the trial of AI on age-contested children at the border will only be “assistive,” with the final decision making remaining in human hands.

    Estelle Pannatier from Algorithm Watch explained that “assistive” AI nonetheless comes with its own pitfalls. “We have observed that people who seek advice from algorithms can, over time, become more dependent on the system and less critical of it,” Pannatier explained. “Thus, a tool developed to assist in decision-making can, in practice, be used as an instrument for making decisions. In theory a human oversees the system … but that person relinquishes their supervisory responsibilities and decision-making authority to the algorithm. It is therefore essential that appropriate processes be put in place to reduce these ‘automation biases.’”

    Meanwhile, there is an apparent lack of transparency surrounding the AI technology being deployed at Europe’s borders. This investigation’s requests for precise details on the Bulgaria pilot were denied. Requests for UK performance reviews regarding Anduril’s Sentry Towers were denied, while the Home Office did not answer questions about whether a human rights impact assessment or a data protection impact assessment had been completed on the facial age estimation technology.

    These examples merely underpin a bigger problem, according to Bram Vranken, a researcher at the Brussels-based watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory. “Border management is being seen as crucial to national security and has become securitized. So, everything to do with borders is being more and more exempt from democratic oversight, accountability, [and] transparency.”

    As countries from Bulgaria to the United Kingdom increasingly rely on AI and other technology to conduct border enforcement, rights groups have become increasingly concerned. In a 2024 report, Amnesty International warned that “digitized interventions” on borders contribute to “weakening human rights protections for migrants and asylum seekers.” In 2023, the EuroMed Rights watchdog said the “use of new technologies is now firmly cemented in the EU’s border policies,” noting that they “underpin invasions of privacy, brutal violations of human rights” across Europe.

    Criticism or not, lucrative contracts for tech companies have continued to pile up. To Dr. Vavoula, the risks these multimillion dollar technologies pose are clear: “These tools are not trained to show compassion.”

    https://inkstickmedia.com/american-ai-arrives-on-fortress-europes-borders-at-what-cost

    #technologie #AI #intelligence_artificielle #IA #frontières #Europe #migrations #technologie #surveillance #Bulgarie #forêt #Andrew_Reiter #Brandon_Tseng #Ryan_Tseng #complexe_militaro-industriel #business #vertical-take-off #Frontex #V-BAT #drones #Grèce #Pays-Bas #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #Turquie #Heron #Israël #USA #Etats-Unis #Mobile_Incident-Management_Centers (#MIMCs) #Anduril_Industries #Manche #Palmer_Luckey #Sentry_Towers #Lattice #âge #biométrie #biométrie_faciale #Molly_Buckley #Electronic_Frontier_Foundation #Trust_Stamp #ICE #Aware_Inc #Paravision_AI

  • Union européenne : 30 000 demandeurs d’asile à répartir depuis l’#Italie, l’#Espagne, la #Grèce et #Chypre

    La Commission européenne a annoncé mardi la liste des quatre États membres bénéficiaires du mécanisme dit de solidarité, prévu par le nouveau #Pacte_asile_et_migration. L’Italie, l’Espagne, la Grèce et Chypre pourront transférer 30 000 demandeurs d’asile vers les autres pays de l’UE. Des #amendes sont prévues pour les réfractaires, tandis que six pays considérés sous pression sont exemptés de cette contribution.

    La Commission européenne a annoncé mardi 11 novembre que l’Italie, l’Espagne, la Grèce et Chypre vont recevoir de l’aide pour répartir ailleurs dans l’Union européenne (UE) au moins 30 000 demandeurs d’asile se trouvant actuellement sur leurs sols.

    La Grèce et Chypre « subissent une forte pression migratoire du fait du niveau disproportionné des arrivées au cours de l’année écoulée », a déclaré mardi la Commission dans un communiqué. Quant à l’Espagne et l’Italie, ces deux pays « subissent également une forte pression migratoire du fait d’un nombre disproportionné d’arrivées à la suite d’opérations de sauvetage et de recherche en mer durant la même période », avance encore la Commission.

    Suite à cette annonce vont s’ouvrir des négociations entre les 27 États membres de l’UE, dont nombre d’entre eux se montrent réticents à l’idée d’accueillir ces exilés. Les décisions de répartition devront néanmoins être prises d’ici fin décembre, précise l’AFP.

    20 000 euros d’amende par personne en cas de refus de la répartition

    Pour rappel, ce #mécanisme_de_solidarité est prévu par le nouveau Pacte asile et migration, adopté en 2024 et qui doit entrer en vigueur d’ici la mi-juin 2026. Celui-ci vise à répartir plus équitablement la prise en charge des demandeurs d’asile sur le sol européen afin d’éviter que les pays en première ligne, considérés par Bruxelles comme étant sous « pression migratoire », ne supportent plus à eux seuls la gestion des demandes.

    Le Pacte a fixé un seuil minimal de 30 000 relocalisations chaque année. Mathématiquement, cela revient à un peu plus de 1 000 migrants par pays. « D’un point de vue logistique, c’est assez facile de prendre 1 000 personnes à un autre pays : tu envoies des bus, des avions », soutenait un diplomate européen à l’AFP fin septembre. Mais « c’est politiquement que c’est très compliqué »

    Si un État refuse de jouer le jeu, l’UE prévoit qu’il paie une amende de 20 000 euros pour chaque migrant « non relocalisé ». Certains pays ont déjà assuré qu’ils n’accueilleraient personne dans le cadre de ce dispositif et qu’ils se limiteraient à verser de l’argent, comme la Hongrie du conservateur Viktor Orban, précise l’AFP.

    Autre option : en cas de refus de #relocalisation, les pays peuvent participer à des mesures de solidarité : déploiement de personnel, aide logistique et financière à d’autres pays… Les États ont donc le choix entre ces trois options. Mais une fois que le Conseil a donné son accord, ces engagements deviennent contraignants.

    Des pays exemptés de répartition, d’autres voués à une aide spécifique dont la France

    L’annonce a été retardée d’un mois, souligne l’AFP, en raison des tractations en amont. Depuis plusieurs mois en effet, des États membres bataillaient pour être inscrits sur la liste des pays « sous #pression_migratoire » dévoilée mardi par le commissaire européen chargé des Affaires intérieures et de la migration, Magnus Brunner.

    La Commission avait en effet pour tâche de classifier les États membres en fonction du degré de « pression migratoire » subi, ouvrant à une participation différenciée au mécanisme de solidarité. Cette classification se fait à partir d’une série de critères dont le nombre d’arrivées irrégulières, la taille du pays...

    Ainsi, au-delà des quatre États bénéficiaires du mécanisme annoncés par Magnus Brunner mardi, six pays pourront, pour leur part, être exemptés de leur devoir de solidarité ou demander une baisse de leur contribution « en raison des pressions cumulées des cinq dernières années ». Ces six pays désignés dans cette liste de pays dits « à #situation_migratoire_significative » sont la #Bulgarie, la #République_tchèque, l’#Estonie, la #Croatie, l’#Autriche et la #Pologne.

    Une troisième catégorie a été définie : les nations « à #risque_migratoire ». Cette liste comprend la #France, l’#Allemagne, la #Belgique, la #Finlande, l’#Irlande, la #Lettonie, la #Lituanie et les #Pays-Bas. « Ces pays sont exposés à une pression migratoire, soit en raison du nombre élevé d’arrivées au cours de l’année précédente, soit en raison des tensions persistantes sur leurs systèmes d’accueil, soit en raison de la menace d’une utilisation de la migration comme arme qui pourrait créer des obligations disproportionnées au cours de l’année à venir », précise la Commission. À ce titre, ils bénéficieront d’un accès prioritaire à l’aide opérationnelle et financière, mais ne seront pas exemptés de contribution.

    En plus de débattre de la façon de gérer les arrivées, les États membres travaillent à l’amélioration des #renvois des #déboutés d’asile via la réforme de la « #directive_retour », actuellement en négociation.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/68080/union-europeenne--30-000-demandeurs-dasile-a-repartir-depuis-litalie-l
    #migrations #réfugiés #asile #Europe #UE #Union_européenne #répartition #transferts #classification

    ping @karine4

  • Procès des tags de mains rouges sur le Mémorial de la Shoah : jusqu’à quatre ans de prison requis contre les prévenus bulgares
    https://www.franceinfo.fr/faits-divers/justice-proces/proces-tags-de-mains-rouges-sur-le-memorial-de-la-shoah-jusqu-a-quatre-an

    Wir Kellerkinder
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wez6uIsndRo


    En 1960 dans son film Wir Kellerkinder Wolfgang Neuss discute pourquoi son personnage principal dessine une croix gammée sur la fenêtre du bar de son père, un ancien nazi.

    Dans le film c’est initialement une commande payée par une équipe de télévision qui doit fournir une séquence filmée montrant des jeunes qui dessinent le symbole nazi. C’est pour illustrer le discours d’un ministre qui veut alerter contre le danger nazi toujours d’actualité. Pourchassés par la police les malfaiteurs se cachent dans le club de jazz de Neuss situé au sous-sol (d’où le titre du film) où il raconte ses raisons personnelles pourquoi il a peint la croix gammée sur la vitrine du bar de son pêre.

    Quinze ans après la fin du régime nazi Wir Kellerkinder est une parodie hilarante de l’hypocrisie des Allemands de l’Ouest et de l’Est par rapport à leur passé immédiat de crimes de guerre et de génocide.

    On n’aurait jamais cru que le scénario du film soit répété 65 ans plus tard à Paris par quelques Bulgares écervelés. La procureure française en rajoute à l’histoire déjà assez absurde et la transforme effectivement en Théâtre de la cruauté extrémiste réalisé comme coproduction européene. Pour une fois la farce précède la tragi-comédie, pour reprendre la phrase de Marx. (un juif) sur Hegel (un Prussien).

    Photo

    Des mains rouges peintes sur le Mur des Justes du Mémorial de la Shoah à Paris, le 14 mai 2024. (ANTONIN UTZ / AFP)

    30.10.2025 de Linh-Lan Dao, Mathilde Texier - Lors de la deuxième journée d’audience, jeudi, la procureure a énoncé ses réquisitions contre quatre Bulgares impliqués dans ces dégradations commises à Paris en mai 2024. Le caractère antisémite ou non de leur action a été au cœur des débats.

    « Ce dossier n’est pas le dossier d’un tag sur un mur. C’est bien plus que cela. » Au terme du deuxième jour de procès des « mains rouges », jeudi 30 octobre, la procureure de la République Camille Poch a requis des peines allant de deux à quatre ans d’emprisonnement, assorties d’une interdiction définitive de territoire français, pour les quatre Bulgares soupçonnés d’avoir dégradé le Mémorial de la Shoah, ainsi que plusieurs murs du 4e et 5e arrondissement de Paris, en mai 2024.

    Le parquet a requis une peine de quatre ans d’emprisonnement contre Nikolay I. et Mircho A., qu’il considère comme les « principaux organisateurs » de l’opération. La procureure a demandé le maintien en détention du premier, absent lors des dégradations mais décrit comme le « logisticien » du groupe, et un mandat d’arrêt pour le second, désigné à la fois comme l’"exécutant principal" de l’opération et le « recruteur », mais toujours en fuite et jugé en son absence. Contre Georgi F. et Kiril M., hommes de main de l’opération, Camille Poch a requis deux ans d’emprisonnement, assortis d’un maintien en détention.

    Lors de ses réquisitions, la procureure a invité le tribunal à mesurer l’impact de cette « opération de manipulation à des fins hostiles ». « Ce qui compte, ce n’est pas la pierre qu’on jette dans l’eau. Ce sont les ondes qui vont apparaître à la surface », a-t-elle souligné. Camille Poch a évoqué « un raid assez organisé en amont pour assurer la plus grande visibilité possible de leur action », sur laquelle plane l’ombre d’une tentative de déstabilisation orchestrée depuis la Russie.

    « Nous avons des ’amis’ qui essaient de réécrire ce qui se passe en France, nous avons une fake news de chair et d’os qui prend littéralement vie », a-t-elle déploré au sujet des trois prévenus présents à l’audience, qui s’étaient présentés la veille comme manipulés par leur ami Mircho A. et inconscients de la portée politique des tags au cœur de l’affaire. Sur les faits survenus la nuit du 13 au 14 mai 2024, « la cohérence entre le symbole [des mains rouges], et le lieu [le Mur des Justes du Mémorial de la Shoah] rend impossible la conjoncture, le caractère fortuit de cette rencontre-là. Ce n’est pas possible », tranche Camille Poch. « Ils ne sont pas venus à Paris parce qu’ils ont vu de la lumière », a-t-elle estimé. « L’attitude des prévenus sur les vidéos de vidéosurveillance montre une équipe déployée, à l’allure déterminée, qui va commettre un délit, pas qui sort d’un bar. »

    Après avoir déroulé les circonstances d’une opération « au niveau de préparation élevé », la procureure s’est attardée sur le profil des différents mis en cause, dont Georgi F., coauteur des tags. Celui-ci « n’est pas un nazi à la retraite », a-t-elle estimé.

    « Je dis qu’il est difficile, voire inaudible de dire qu’on a tagué, ivre, sans vérifier, le Mur des Justes au Mémorial de la Shoah, alors que l’on porte soi-même, sur une photo, un T-shirt disant qu’Hitler avait raison ».
    Camille Bloch, procureure de la République au tribunal correctionnel de Paris

    Camille Poch a ainsi plaidé pour la prise en compte des deux circonstances aggravantes des dégradations, liée à leur commission en réunion et à leur caractère antisémite. L’ingérence étrangère et l’antisémitisme sont « deux faces d’un même dossier », a estimé la procureure, évoquant « presque un antisémitisme d’opportunisme » accompagné d’une « recherche de fracturation de la société française », sur fonds de débats sur la guerre dans la bande de Gaza et de résurgence des actes antisémites. Elle a insisté auprès du tribunal sur l’importance de ce procès, dans un contexte marqué par d’autres campagnes de déstabilisation orchestrées depuis l’étranger : « Votre décision, c’est la première, un jalon absolument essentiel pour la suite. »

    Lors de leurs plaidoiries, les parties civiles se sont employées à démontrer le caractère antisémite des dégradations de mai 2024, revenant notamment sur la signification des mains rouges, symbole lié au lynchage de deux réservistes israéliens à Ramallah (Cisjordanie) en 2000. Le tag de ces mains sur le Mémorial de la Shoah est « ni plus ni moins qu’un appel au meurtre » visant les Juifs de France, a dénoncé Jacques Fredj, directeur du monument, venu assister au procès. « Avec une façade de 14 mètres de haut, une étoile de David de deux mètres de haut sur deux mètres, (...) personne ne peut croire que cette triste épopée se soit retrouvée là par hasard » a estimé David Père, avocat du Mémorial de la Shoah.

    Un an plus tard, le lieu faisait l’objet d’une nouvelle dégradation, cette fois-ci à la peinture verte, toujours sur fond de soupçon d’ingérence russe. « Il n’a jamais fait de doute pour nous que (...) l’antisémitisme était la motivation principale des quatre mis en cause » a déclaré de son côté Galina Elbaz, avocate de la Licra. « L’ingérence n’excuse pas l’antisémitisme de ce dossier. Elle n’excuse pas, elle instrumentalise. »

    De son côté, la défense a insisté sur la perspective de « l’argent facile » représentée par l’opération. Georgi F. « est une circonstance aggravante à lui seul », concède son avocat Martin Vettes, en référence aux tatouages néonazis du prévenu bulgare. Il a toutefois démenti le caractère antisémite des motivations de son client, le présentant comme un père de famille souhaitant régler ses arriérés de pension alimentaire. L’intéressé avait évoqué, à l’audience, des problèmes de santé l’ayant empêché de travailler pendant six mois. Selon son conseil, Georgi F. n’a pas été recruté par Mircho A., son ami de longue date, en raison de leurs affinités politiques – ils se sont rencontrés dans les milieux ultranationalistes bulgares – mais pour profiter de sa vulnérabilité.

    Rappelant l’implication du prévenu dans une autre affaire d’ingérence, celle de cercueils portant la mention « soldats français de l’Ukraine » déposés sous la Tour Eiffel, seulement un mois après les faits jugés, l’avocat de Georgi F. l’a présentée comme la « double preuve » de motivations financières et non politiques.

    « S’il avait été motivé par l’idéologie, il aurait fait le choix de ne s’en prendre qu’aux Juifs ou aux autres populations visées par les néonazis »
    Martin Vettes, avocat de Georgi F.au tribunal correctionnel de Paris

    L’avocat a achevé sa plaidoirie en appelant le tribunal à faire abstraction du lourd contexte politique qui entoure l’affaire : « Si vous écartez la circonstance aggravante de l’antisémitisme, vous allez en prendre plein la tête. Mais votre devoir de juge, c’est d’écarter l’opinion publique et de juger les faits tels qu’ils sont », a-t-il conclu. Les plaidoiries de la défense doivent se poursuivre vendredi.

    C’est un sacre branle-bas cette histoire car aucune des personnes impliquées a l’expérience de l’hecatombe, des cadavres qui s’entassent à côté du bout de terre où tu poses ta tête pour dormir. Neuss fait partie de la lost generation qui a vécu sa jeunesse entre 16 et 21 ans sous les bombes et dans les tranchées, obligé de risquer sa vie pour des idéaux qui se sont révélés comme mensonges criminels après la défaite.
    Il nous a enseigné qu’il y a une différence entre les crimes de guerre, le génocide et les symboles qu’on doit prendre pour ce qu’ils sont, des symboles, seulement des symboles qui ne somt jamais ce que nous croyons qu’ils représentent.

    Wolfgang Neuss
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Neuss

    Wolfgang Neuss en 1964, troisième à gauche, évidemment, t’as vu la tronche

    Humour des tranchées, à propos du vol du Challenger le 28 janvier 1986 :
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-L

    »Die nächste Challenger wird ohne Sitze gebaut. Die paar Minuten können sie auch stehen.«

    #France #Bulgarie #Europe #justice #antisemitisme #hypocrisi #parodie #société_du_spectaclee #wtf

  • Étoiles, Konrad Wolf, 1959
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/005406-000-A/etoiles

    Dans ce film émouvant le protagoniste échoue car son humanisme le fait trahir son amour. A la fin il prend enfin la décision de s’allier aux antifascistes et de combattre activement les armées génocidaires

    Les oeuvres de Gorki, Brecht et Wolf sont toujours d’actualité. Aujourd’hui on peut les regarder en dehors du contexte staliniste et découvrir leurs réponses essentielles aux question de la lutte pour la libération du capitalisme, du colonialisme et de l’impérialisme.

    Disponible jusqu’au 19/01/2026

    Un sous-officier de la Wehrmacht tente de faire évader Ruth une jeune femme juive dont il est tombé amoureux... Par le cinéaste est-allemand Konrad Wolf, une histoire d’amour tragique, récompensée à Cannes en 1959.

    La question centrale du film est soulevée implicitement par la tentative desespérée et absurde de comprendre le conflit en Palestine en tant que tel alors qu’il s’agit d’un épisode du développement des contradictions provoquées par l"impérialisme mondial.

    Gilles Deleuze et la Palestine
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1142722
    https://lestempsquirestent.org/fr/numeros/numero-7/gilles-deleuze-et-la-palestine

    Le fascisme et le national-socialisme partagent la même image de l’homme avec le libéralisme : L’homme est un loup pour l’autrui. En passant à l’acte conséquent les adeptes de ces idéologies créent les conditions nécessaires pour illustrer le soi-disant bien-fondé de leur axiome méprisant..

    Une cible à la fois : La logique qui a aidé les libéraux israéliens à commettre un génocide
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1142822

    Si on suit la définition israélienne du génocide décrite dans cet article, même l"holocauste nazi n’en fut pas un, car dans la logique de l’époque il s’agissait d’un acte de légitime défense pour sauver le peuple allemand de la déstruction par le venin juif.

    Là aussi il n’y a donc rien de nouveau depuis 1945,. Il y a eu une modification de la distribution des rôles, mais en principe on joue toujours la même pièce.

    #Allemagne #Bulgarie #Israel #Palestine #histoire #film #DDR #antifascisme #shoa #holocauste #nakba #génocide

  • La ricerca dei dispersi in Bulgaria, un’altra frontiera europea del silenzio

    Con l’ingresso completo del Paese nell’area Schengen a gennaio 2025, sul confine tra Turchia e Bulgaria avanza il processo di militarizzazione. Alcune persone in movimento continuano a morire nel tentativo di attraversare l’immensa foresta di frontiera e vengono seppellite in numerose tombe senza nome. Manca però un sistema unitario ed efficace di identificazione dei corpi e le famiglie rimangono senza risposte per anni

    “Mio fratello ha provato cinque volte”. Roze racconta da Damasco la storia del fratello Rabeh, scappato dalla Siria a ventidue anni, che ha tentato di raggiungere l’Europa attraverso il confine turco-bulgaro. “Una volta il suo gruppo è stato respinto dalle autorità bulgare. Un’altra sono stati picchiati dalla polizia che ha preso i loro documenti e li ha rimandati in Turchia. Al quinto tentativo, dopo aver camminato quattro giorni, ha deciso di consegnarsi alla polizia bulgara. Da quel momento la comunicazione con lui si è interrotta”. È dal 22 novembre 2022 che Roze non ha sue notizie.

    Migliaia di persone hanno cercato di entrare in Unione europea dalla Bulgaria negli ultimi anni, e come Rabeh, molte sono state avvistate per l’ultima volta nella grande foresta di confine, la Strandža. Il Parco naturale della Strandža è la più grande area protetta della Bulgaria, un immenso massiccio montuoso e verde ma anche un luogo di passaggi silenziosi, di orme che spariscono nel fango.

    Questa frontiera lunga circa 160 chilometri è sempre più militarizzata. Attraversando la foresta in macchina si incontrano posti di blocco della polizia bulgara e di Frontex a ogni decina di chilometri. Gli agenti scrutano attentamente ogni veicolo; parecchi vengono fermati, soprattutto quelli stranieri. Nei cimiteri dei paesi ai margini del Parco, tombe senza nome sono nascoste da erba alta e incuria: semplici croci di legno su cui si legge solo “НЕИЗВЕСТЕН”, “sconosciuto”. Tumuli anonimi ma che racchiudono le storie e le vite di chi ha cercato di attraversare questo confine.

    Dal 2023 la militarizzazione della frontiera tra Turchia e Grecia lungo il fiume Evros ha spostato le rotte migratorie verso quella bulgara, più permeabile. A partire dal primo gennaio 2025 la Bulgaria è entrata completamente nell’area Schengen, portando a un ulteriore dispiego di forze dell’ordine con lo scopo di ridurre la pressione migratoria del 70%. Secondo i dati del ministero dell’Interno bulgaro, nel periodo gennaio-luglio 2025, 9.072 persone hanno “tentato di attraversare illegalmente i confini del Paese”. La quasi totalità proveniva dalla Turchia. Questo dato rappresenta un grosso calo rispetto ai 29.314 ingressi del 2024, che erano ulteriormente diminuiti di oltre il 71% rispetto al 2023, quando si erano contate 181.117 persone.

    Il confine turco-bulgaro è diventato uno dei più violenti d’Europa con moltissime segnalazioni di pushback illegali e violenze sui migranti da parte delle autorità. Alcune delle persone in movimento muoiono nel tentativo di attraversare le frontiere e molte delle salme non ricevono identificazione. Non ci sono dati ufficiali sul numero di persone migranti scomparse.

    Dopo la caduta del regime di Assad, nel dicembre 2024, Roze e le altre famiglie siriane delle persone scomparse in Bulgaria hanno incrementato i tentativi di avere notizie dei loro cari, organizzando sit-in di protesta davanti all’ambasciata bulgara a Damasco e presso quella siriana a Sofia. “Ci hanno detto che erano in contatto con le autorità bulgare e che ci avrebbero fatto sapere ma sono passati mesi e non ci hanno ancora dato nessuna notizia -aggiunge Roze-. Dovremmo continuare a fare pressione sull’ambasciata finché non prenderanno la nostra questione più seriamente”. Tuttavia le famiglie che cercano i loro cari sono sparse in Siria, Libano, Turchia o in Europa ed è difficile unirsi. “È come se avessero perso la speranza”.

    Dima Aldera è la fondatrice di Findsuri, un’organizzazione non profit con base in Canada che si occupa di raccogliere denunce di sparizioni e di possibili avvistamenti di cittadini siriani. Nel 2025 ha aperto delle sedi anche in Siria. “Incontriamo i familiari in villaggi remoti, spieghiamo come fare i test del Dna, come segnalare i casi di sparizione. Le famiglie ora si aspettano anche sostegno dalle autorità siriane, che finora non c’è stato, anche se hanno lodato la nostra iniziativa”.

    La storia di Roze, Rabeh e dei tanti siriani scomparsi è comune anche ad altre famiglie. Fatima, donna afghana che oggi abita in Svezia, non ha notizie del fratello dal 25 settembre 2022. Mohammad era un ufficiale dell’esercito afghano e aveva cercato di mettersi in salvo in Europa dopo la caduta del Paese in mano ai Talebani.

    “Mio fratello aveva le gambe gonfie ed è rimasto indietro, nei pressi di Burgas. Aveva detto al resto del gruppo di continuare e che sarebbe arrivato dalla polizia da solo”, racconta Fatima. La famiglia ha subito chiamato i suoi compagni ma quando sono tornati lui non c’era più. Per settimane hanno aspettato notizie dalle autorità ma non sono arrivate.

    “Spesso qualcuno si stanca durante il cammino e può accadere che venga lasciato indietro -aggiunge Dima Aldera-. A volte i trafficanti danno pillole per resistere più a lungo ma possono avere delle controindicazioni, provocare malori”.

    Se la polizia riceve una segnalazione di una persona in difficoltà è tenuta a intervenire prontamente, spiega Dragomir Oshavkov, avvocato della Foundation for access to rights (Far), che fornisce supporto legale per migranti e promuove un accesso più equo alla giustizia da un modesto ufficio di Burgas, la principale città del Sud della Bulgaria affacciata sul Mar Nero. Eppure “molto spesso i soccorsi non rispondono in tempo, soprattutto quando si tratta di migranti. È così che si verificano alcune delle tragedie”, commenta Oshavkov. Inoltre spesso i trafficanti non fanno neanche partire le segnalazioni: “Molti cadaveri vengono trovati nei boschi dopo anni. In questo caso è praticamente impossibile identificare i corpi”.

    Secondo Oshavkov i pushback violenti da parte delle autorità contribuiscono a mettere in grave pericolo i migranti. “La polizia di frontiera li respinge, costringendoli a percorrere a piedi 20-30 chilometri nei boschi in una zona molto impervia, con il rischio che qualcuno possa morire durante il viaggio di ritorno specialmente con condizioni climatiche avverse”. Secondo i dati raccolti dal Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, nel 2024 si sono registrati “3.548 presunti respingimenti che hanno interessato 43.282 persone”, circa il 75% in meno rispetto all’anno precedente .

    Oshavkov ha contribuito a seguire alcuni casi come avvocato, in collaborazione con l’organizzazione che in Bulgaria si è spesa maggiormente per supportare le famiglie dei dispersi: Mission wings, una delle poche Ong locali che offre supporto legale e sociale a migranti e rifugiati. La direttrice Diana Dimova racconta che negli ultimi due anni le richieste di supporto nella ricerca di familiari sono aumentate drasticamente. “In Bulgaria non esiste un sistema per supportare le famiglie delle persone migranti scomparse. A volte i corpi vengono scoperti da cacciatori, da turisti o dalla polizia ma restano senza nome”.

    Nel suo ufficio a Stara Zagora, Dimova mostra faldoni e faldoni di documenti. Per ogni caso Mission wings ha un fascicolo dove si accumulano richiami alla procura, fotografie e testimonianze dei familiari. “Aiutiamo i parenti a fare i test del Dna, li accompagniamo negli uffici o persino negli obitori. Ma non esiste un protocollo unificato: a Burgas i corpi vengono conservati per anni, a Yambol sepolti in pochi giorni. Abbiamo visto casi in cui un procuratore ordina la sepoltura senza avvisare la famiglia. È inaccettabile”.

    C’è anche chi cerca di approfittare economicamente della disperazione delle famiglie dagli obitori alla polizia, riferisce Dimova. Fatima racconta che dopo la scomparsa di Mohammad, “mio marito e mio fratello sono andati subito a Sofia, all’ambasciata afghana”, dove gli hanno dato una lettera ufficiale per recarsi alla polizia di frontiera. Nonostante ciò, racconta, la polizia li ha trattati in maniera molto aggressiva e non ha offerto nessun aiuto.

    Dopo alcuni mesi sono tornati e hanno cercato di accedere alla camera mortuaria di Burgas. “All’inizio non gli permettevano di entrare. Poi mio fratello ha dato dei soldi alla guardiana per ottenere il permesso di entrare e vedere se mio fratello era lì o no -spiega Fatima. Da quasi tre anni la sua famiglia si trova in questa situazione-. Non viviamo, sopravviviamo. Ci chiediamo come sia possibile che una persona arrivata in un Paese europeo per salvarsi la vita oggi risulti scomparsa”.

    Il Collettivo Rotte Balcaniche, che opera sul confine bulgaro in solidarietà ai migranti, cerca di prevenire le sparizioni: “Essere presenti nei boschi, anche accanto a un corpo ormai senza vita, costringe le autorità a procedure di identificazione rapide, senza negligenze -spiega Giuseppe Pederzolli, membro del Collettivo-. Avvisiamo Mission wings che contatta le famiglie lontane e li supportiamo nel rimpatrio del corpo”.

    Pederzolli ricorda il caso di Fadi, diciottenne egiziano il cui corpo è stato rinvenuto nella Strandža il 30 marzo 2025. Il corpo, conservato in condizioni non adeguate in un obitorio bulgaro, è stato seppellito solo a metà luglio in un cimitero locale non potendo la famiglia coprire le spese per il rimpatrio della salma. “È arrivata al cimitero dopo un viaggio in furgone a quaranta gradi ormai in condizioni disastrose. È stato un momento terribile ma anche un tentativo di restituire dignità al ragazzo. Se fosse stato un adolescente bulgaro o italiano, il rispetto delle autorità sarebbe stato diverso”.

    Dal 2023 il Collettivo Rotte Balcaniche ha creato il progetto Border Memory, una piattaforma digitale dove sono raccolte storie e segnalazioni di persone disperse alla frontiera. A una richiesta di accesso agli atti rivolta a più di 250 Comuni, 170 hanno risposto dichiarando 62 tombe senza nome e riferite a persone in movimento (mentre si attendono conferme di altre decine di Comuni). Perlustrando i cimiteri della zona di confine insieme agli attivisti, sono state ritrovate 21 tombe a Burgas, quattro a Sredets, due a Ehlovo e una a Yambol. “Ottenere dalle autorità i dati sulle sepolture delle persone non identificate permette di dare al fenomeno una dimensione concreta, e soprattutto di accertare le responsabilità”, aggiunge Pederzolli.

    Secondo Oshavkov serve “un registro centralizzato per permettere a chi cerca un parente di confrontare il Dna. Ad oggi c’è solo quello del ministero dell’Interno ma contiene solo dati di persone che sono passate per il sistema giudiziario”.

    “Non stiamo parlando di uno o due casi -conclude Dimova-, sono decine, forse centinaia di persone scomparse in Bulgaria. È ora che le istituzioni prendano la questione sul serio. Le famiglie hanno bisogno di sapere che qualcuno ancora si interessa a loro, che qualcuno sta provando a cercare la verità per i loro cari. Ad oggi non è così. E questo mi spezza il cuore”.

    https://altreconomia.it/la-ricerca-dei-dispersi-in-bulgaria-unaltra-frontiera-europea-del-silen
    #frontières #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #décès #Bulgarie

  • Traversées de la Manche : vaste saisie de bateaux gonflables en Bulgarie depuis le début de l’année - InfoMigrants
    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/66585/traversees-de-la-manche--vaste-saisie-de-bateaux-gonflables-en-bulgari

    Traversées de la Manche : vaste saisie de bateaux gonflables en Bulgarie depuis le début de l’année
    Par Clémence Cluzel Publié le : 26/08/2025
    Près de 70 bateaux gonflables ont été saisis par les autorités bulgares depuis le début de l’année, à la demande et en collaboration avec les autorités britanniques. Fabriqués en Turquie, ces canots pneumatiques sont utilisés par les trafiquants pour faire traverser illégalement La Manche aux migrants désireux de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni. C’est une nouvelle prise dans la lutte contre les réseaux de trafiquants de migrants que mène le Royaume-Uni contre l’immigration illégale. Depuis le début de l’année, les autorités bulgares ont saisis près de 70 bateaux gonflables, destinés au trafic de migrants, au poste de contrôle frontalier de Kapitan Andreevo, au sud-est de la Bulgarie. Celui-ci, limitrophe à la Turquie et à la Grèce, est l’un des plus fréquentés d’Europe et le cœur des trafics d’êtres humains.
    Dernièrement, les douaniers bulgares y ont découvert vingt canots pneumatiques transportés dans un camion turc. « En inspectant le camion, nous avons trouvé deux palettes contenant chacune 20 grands paquets, déclarés comme étant des bâches », a déclaré Krasimir Chapkanov, chef de l’unité opérationnelle de Kapitan Andreevo. « Mais après avoir ouvert le premier paquet, nous avons découvert des bateaux gonflables en caoutchouc avec des côtés rigides et des fonds renforcés » poursuit-il. Lorsqu’ils ne sont pas découverts, ces canots pneumatiques sont ensuite acheminés par des réseaux de passeurs jusque sur les côtes françaises afin de faire traverser illégalement La Manche aux migrants souhaitant rejoindre le Royaume-Uni.
    Au total, près de 200 bateaux transportés par camions ont été saisis à ce poste de contrôle bulgare depuis deux ans que dure cette coopération entre Londres et Sofia pour stopper la contrebande et le trafic d’êtres humains. Ces embarcations sont fabriquées en Turquie par des entreprises inconnues, avec pour seul but, selon les autorités bulgares, d’être utilisé pour transporter des migrants. « Il a été établi que ces bateaux sont utilisés par des organisations criminelles impliquées dans le trafic illégal de migrants à travers la Manche », indique Diana Markova, porte-parole de l’Agence des douanes bulgares. « Ils n’ont aucun document, aucun certificat, aucune garantie. Ils sont fabriqués uniquement dans ce but », affirme également Krasimir Chapkanov. Le pays des Balkans est au centre du transit de ces embarcations.
    La logistique des réseaux pour assurer leur transport est bien huilée. Transportés par camions jusqu’en Europe, les pneumatiques sont généralement déclarés aux douanes en tant que marchandise légale et étiquetés comme des bâches, des tentes ou d’autres marchandises denses pour éviter des contrôles par scanners à rayons X. Pour éviter les soupçons de trafic, ils sont envoyés démontés, et les moteurs des bateaux sont transportés séparément.
    Pour mettre un coup d’arrêt à ces réseaux mafieux, les autorités britanniques coopèrent depuis 2022 avec la Bulgarie. Elles soutiennent les autorités bulgares tant matériellement, logistiquement que financièrement. Les douaniers du poste frontière en Bulgarie ont ainsi été formés spécialement pour le contrôle de ce type de cargaison et ont reçu de nouveaux équipements pour restreindre ces importations vers l’Europe. « Nous avons reçu une subvention de 600 000 leva (307 000 €) en équipement - outils, endoscopes, analyseurs de gaz et matériel de levage - », a déclaré Diana Markova.
    Les contrôles ont donc été renforcés à la frontière : inspections poussées, portiques à rayon X, chiens renifleurs, tout est passé au peigne fin pour limiter les entrées de bateaux pneumatiques. Selon une analyse britannique, ce travail conjoint aurait permis de sauver au moins 6 100 vies de migrants et d’infliger un préjudice de plus de 18 millions d’euros aux groupes criminels organisés. D’après l’AFP, Londres aurait versé, entre 2022 et 2024, la somme de 1,2 million de livres sterling (1,4 million d’euros) pour la formation des effectifs et l’apport d’équipements, dont des drones de surveillance. En février 2024, l’ancien secrétaire d’État britannique aux Affaires étrangères, David Cameron, avait rencontré les douaniers bulgares dans le cadre d’une offensive de Londres pour mettre fin au « terrible commerce qui coûte la vie à de nombreuses personnes ».
    Le Royaume-Uni multiplie les mesures pour lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière. C’est dans ce contexte qu’a été signé le 10 juillet un « projet pilote » d’échange de migrants avec Paris, basé sur le principe du « un pour un ». Les poursuites contre les passeurs de migrants se sont également accentuées ces derniers mois, tant au Royaume-Uni qu’en France. En 2024, près de 37 000 sans-papiers sont arrivés sur les côtes britanniques en utilisant des « small boats », ces embarcations pneumatiques de fortune bien souvent surchargées. Le nombre de traversées a explosé ces derniers mois : au moins 25 000 migrants ont réussi à franchir la Manche depuis janvier, soit 48% de plus qu’en 2024, et 75% de plus qu’en 2023. Il s’agit majoritairement d’Afghans, Syriens, Iraniens, Vietnamiens qui demandent ensuite l’asile. Une augmentation de départs qui se traduit également par une hausse des décès, car malgré la faible distance séparant les côtes britanniques de celles françaises (environ 30km), la traversée est particulièrement risquée. La faible qualité des embarcations ainsi que des mauvaises conditions météorologiques ou encore le renforcement des contrôles policiers sur les côtes françaises, accentuent les risques.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#royaumeuni#bulgarie#france#turquie#routemigratoire#migrationirreguliere#trafic#smallboat#sante

  • Les Bulgares révoltés contre l’entrée de leur pays dans la zone #euro
    https://lvsl.fr/les-bulgares-revoltes-contre-lentree-de-leur-pays-dans-la-zone-euro

    Alors que les élites européennes ont applaudi le feu vert à l’entrée de la #Bulgarie dans l’euro en 2026, la population doute fortement de cette transition monétaire. Outre les craintes légitimes sur une potentielle inflation durant le changement de #Monnaie, les Bulgares craignent aussi un scénario similaire à leur voisin grec, alors que leur pays est le plus pauvre de l’UE.

    #Politique #Reprendre_le_contrôle_sur_la_monnaie #Balkans #Grèce #Maastricht #néolibéralisme #UE #Union_Européenne #zone_euro

  • Alexandre Mirlicourtois, La Bulgarie en zone euro : la rigueur et l’exode - Décryptage éco - xerficanal.com

    via https://diasp.eu/p/17698644

    https://www.xerficanal.com/economie/emission/Alexandre-Mirlicourtois-La-Bulgarie-en-zone-euro-la-rigueur-et-l-exode_3

    #économie #politique #UE

    L’UE détruit les pays qu’elle absorbe. C’est une colonisation rampante.

    ...Son PIB par habitant, à peine supérieur à 24 000 euros, représente seulement 41% de la moyenne européenne, ce qui en fait le pays le plus pauvre d’Europe. Une sacrée épine dans le pied. Le manque d’attractivité et de perspectives pousse une partie de la population, notamment les jeunes qualifiés, à quitter le pays. Cette émigration est facilitée par une diaspora importante (43% des Bulgares résident à l’étranger) et par l’adhésion à l’UE depuis 2007.

    Résultat : la population diminue, (...)

  • Διοικητής Frontex : Δημιουργήσαμε « μια αίσθηση ατιμωρησίας » στην Ελλάδα
    https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/investigation/dioikitis-frontex-dimioyrgisame-aisthisi-atimwrisias-ellada

    Ο εκτελεστικός διευθυντής Χανς Λέιτενς ανέλαβε να αποκαταστήσει την φήμη της Frontex, μετά τις αποκαλύψεις για συγκάλυψη παράνομων επαναπροωθήσεων στην Ελλάδα. Τρία χρόνια μετά, όμως, οι βίαιες επαναπροωθήσεις σε Ελλάδα, Βουλγαρία, και Σερβία συνεχίζονται.

    • Envie de dire que la traduction automatique est défaillante.

      Deepl.com nous dit que :

      Le directeur exécutif Hans Leutens a été chargé de rétablir la réputation de #Frontex après les révélations sur la dissimulation des retours illégaux en Grèce. Trois ans plus tard, les refoulements violents se poursuivent en #Grèce, en #Bulgarie et en #Serbie.

      Tandis que Google Translate baragouine :

      Le directeur exécutif Hans Leitens s’est entrepris de restaurer la réputation de Frontex, à la suite de révélations de couvrer la résiortation illégale de re -re -re -re en Grèce. Trois ans plus tard, cependant, les redéfinitions violentes en Grèce, en Bulgarie et en Serbie se poursuivent.

  • Plus de 120 000 refoulements de migrants aux frontières de l’UE en 2024, selon un rapport de plusieurs ONG - InfoMigrants
    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/63062/plus-de-120-000-refoulements-de-migrants-aux-frontieres-de-lue-en-2024

    Plus de 120 000 refoulements de migrants aux frontières de l’UE en 2024, selon un rapport de plusieurs ONG
    Par Leslie Carretero Publié le : 25/02/2025 Dernière modification : 26/02/2025
    Selon un rapport de neuf organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme, présentes dans plusieurs pays européens, plus de 120 000 refoulements de migrants ont été enregistrés aux frontières extérieures de l’UE en 2024. Ces « pushbacks » sont devenus « une pratique systématique dans le cadre de la politique migratoire de l’UE », dénoncent les ONG.C’est un nouveau document qui tend à mettre en lumière l’ampleur des refoulements opérés aux frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne (UE). Un rapport, publié lundi 17 février, qui regroupe neuf organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme actives dans plusieurs pays européens - dont We Are Monitoring en Pologne, la Fondation Mission Wings en Bulgarie et le Comité hongrois d’Helsinki en Hongrie - affirme qu’"au moins" 120 457 « pushbacks » ont été enregistrés en 2024 en Europe - des refoulements à la frontière sans laisser à la personne concernée la possibilité de demander l’asile.
    Cette pratique est pourtant illégale au regard du « principe de non-refoulement » consacré par l’article 33 de la Convention de Genève sur le droit des réfugiés : « Aucun des États contractants n’expulsera ou ne refoulera […] un réfugié sur les frontières des territoires où sa vie ou sa liberté serait menacée », exige le texte. Le principe de non-refoulement est également réaffirmé par l’Union européenne dans sa Charte des droits fondamentaux.
    Pour parvenir à ce chiffre record, les militants se sont appuyés sur des rapports d’ONG et de groupes de recherche ainsi que sur les données des services gouvernementaux. À noter que ce chiffre ne concerne que les refoulements survenus dans un pays européen vers des États tiers et ne prend pas en compte les expulsions aux frontières intérieures de l’UE. Par ailleurs, une personne peut avoir été refoulée plusieurs fois.
    Selon les données du rapport, la Bulgarie figure en tête du classement des États de l’UE qui refoulent le plus de migrants. En 2024, les autorités de Sofia ont mené 52 534 « pushbacks » vers la Turquie, indique le texte.Cette première place s’explique en partie par la nouvelle adhésion pleine et entière à l’espace Schengen, fin novembre. La Bulgarie est soumise à une forte pression de la part des autres États membres de l’UE dans sa capacité à gérer les flux migratoires. Les questions de sécurité aux frontières figuraient parmi les principales préoccupations qui ont retardé l’entrée de la Bulgarie à l’espace Schengen - l’Autriche et les Pays-Bas ayant dans un premier temps opposé leur veto à une adhésion.
    (...) Les récits des exilés font également état de violences perpétrées par les autorités. Demandeurs d’asile « obligés de retourner en Turquie à la nage », déshabillés de force ou sévèrement mordus par les chiens des gardes bulgares : dans cette région, une violence considérable est exercée par les gardes-frontières. Des agissements dénoncés à de nombreuses reprises par les ONG, et dont même l’agence européenne de protection des frontières Frontex a eu connaissance, selon une enquête du réseau Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).Ces refoulements peuvent parfois mener à des drames. Selon une étude de la branche viennoise de la Fondation ARD, en coopération avec Lighthouse Reports, et plusieurs médias, au moins 93 personnes transitant par la Bulgarie sont décédées en 2022 et 2023.
    Début janvier 2025, l’organisation italienne Colletivo rotte balcaniche (collectif de la route des Balkans) et l’association No name kitchen avaient accusé Sofia d’être responsable de la mort de trois migrants égyptiens. (...) De manière générale, le gouvernement bulgare nie pratiquer des « pushbacks », selon Le Monde. En 2023, Ivaylo Tonchev, un des chefs de la police des frontières bulgare, s’était aussi défendu contre les accusations des ONG. (...)
    D’après le rapport des neuf ONG européennes, la Bulgarie est suivie par la Grèce, avec 14 482 refoulements enregistrés à ses frontières en 2024. Depuis des années, Athènes est accusée de « pushbacks » violents en mer Égée et près du fleuve Evros.
    InfoMigrants a récolté de nombreux témoignages d’exilés victimes de ces expulsions illégales. (...) En mai 2023, une vidéo accablante du New York Times montrait des gardes-côtes grecs remettre des migrants à l’eau, direction la Turquie. Cette même année, dans un rapport du mois de novembre, l’ONG Médecins sans frontières (MSF) affirmait déjà que les refoulements illégaux de migrants étaient « devenus la norme », de même que « l’absence criante de protection pour les personnes qui cherchent la sécurité en Grèce ». Pire encore, selon une enquête de la BBC menée en juin 2024, en trois ans, 43 exilés sont morts en mer Égée après avoir été refoulés par les autorités grecques. Neuf d’entre eux ont été directement jetés à l’eau par les gardes-côtes, et se sont noyés.
    Le 7 janvier 2025, la Grèce a été condamnée pour la première fois par la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (CEDH) dans une affaire de refoulement de demandeurs d’asile. La requérante, une Turque, avait été expulsée le jour-même de son arrivée en Grèce vers la Turquie - puis arrêtée et emprisonnée par les autorités turques. La CEDH a condamné la Grèce a lui verser 20 000 euros.
    D’autres États de l’UE pourraient bientôt connaître une sentence similaire. Début février, la CEDH a commencé à examiner trois affaires contre la Pologne, la Lettonie et la Lituanie concernant des allégations de refoulement vers la Biélorussie. Malgré les preuves qui s’accumulent, Athènes n’a pourtant jamais reconnu l’existence de ces refoulements et a toujours nié les pratiquer.
    Contactée par InfoMigrants, la Commission européenne rappelle qu’il « appartient aux États membres de gérer et de protéger leurs frontières extérieures dans le cadre juridique de l’UE » et qu’il est de leur « responsabilité d’enquêter sur toute allégation d’actes répréhensibles ». « Dans le cadre de nos activités de gestion des frontières, les États membres doivent veiller à ce que leurs obligations en vertu du droit européen et international soient respectées, y compris la protection des droits fondamentaux ».
    Après la Bulgarie et la Grèce, championnes des « pushbacks », on retrouve dans le rapport la Pologne (13 600 refoulements), la Hongrie (5 713), la Lettonie (5 388), la Croatie (1 905) ou encore la Lituanie (1 002). Plusieurs de ces pays, qui accusent la Biélorussie de vouloir déstabiliser l’Europe en laissant passer les migrants, ont d’ailleurs légalisé ces dernières années les refoulements à leurs frontières, en dépit du droit international. L’étude couvre également le Liban et la Libye car, notent les auteurs, les interceptions en mer ont été effectuées avec le soutien « direct et étendu » de l’Italie, de Chypre et plus généralement des instances européennes. Ainsi l’an dernier, 21 762 interceptions ont eu lieu en mer Méditerranée, au large de la Libye, contre 17 000 en 2023.

    En 2017, l’UE a signé un accord avec la Libye dans le but d’empêcher les migrants de traverser la Méditerranée et de rejoindre l’Italie. À travers ce partenariat, sans cesse renouvelé, l’Europe donne concrètement aux autorités libyennes la charge de la coordination des sauvetages au large de leurs côtes (tâche qui incombait auparavant au centre de coordination de sauvetage maritime de Rome ou de La Valette, à Malte). L’Italie équipe et forme aussi les gardes-côtes libyens pour intercepter les exilés en Méditerranée.
    Cette collaboration controversée est régulièrement dénoncée par les ONG et les instances internationales, en raison des dérapages, menaces, intimidations des autorités libyennes en mer contre les migrants et les humanitaires.
    (...) L’ensemble de ces refoulements, « en forte augmentation », observés aux frontières extérieures de l’Europe « sont devenus une pratique systématique dans le cadre de la politique migratoire de l’UE », estiment les ONG. « Les rapports continus sur les refoulements montrent l’échec de l’UE à faire respecter les droits de l’Homme ».
    Les humanitaires et les chercheurs regrettent le manque de réaction des institutions européennes qui donne, de fait, un blanc-seing aux pays pointés du doigt. « Il y a quelques années, la Commission européenne, garante du respect des traités de l’UE en matière d’asile, condamnait ces pratiques. Aujourd’hui, on entend beaucoup moins de réprobations de sa part, elle a perdu beaucoup de son influence sur ses membres », avait déclaré en octobre Matthieu Tardis, chercheur spécialisé sur l’immigration et co-directeur de Synergie Migrations.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#UE#pushback#grece#bulgarie#frontiere#droit#sante#mortalite#politiquemigratoire#asile

  • Plus de 120 000 #refoulements de migrants aux #frontières de l’#UE en 2024, selon un rapport de plusieurs ONG

    Selon un rapport de neuf organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme, présentes dans plusieurs pays européens, plus de 120 000 refoulements de migrants ont été enregistrés aux frontières extérieures de l’UE en 2024 (https://www.cms.hr/system/publication/pdf/210/Pushed__Beaten__Left_to_Die_-_European_pushback_report_2024.pdf). Ces « pushbacks » sont devenus « une pratique systématique dans le cadre de la politique migratoire de l’UE », dénoncent les ONG.

    C’est un nouveau document qui tend à mettre en lumière l’ampleur des refoulements opérés aux frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne (UE). Un rapport, publié lundi 17 février, qui regroupe neuf organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme actives dans plusieurs pays européens - dont We Are Monitoring en Pologne, la Fondation Mission Wings en Bulgarie et le Comité hongrois d’Helsinki en Hongrie - affirme qu’"au moins" 120 457 « pushbacks » ont été enregistrés en 2024 en Europe - des refoulements à la frontière sans laisser à la personne concernée la possibilité de demander l’asile.

    Cette pratique est pourtant illégale au regard du « principe de non-refoulement » consacré par l’article 33 de la Convention de Genève sur le droit des réfugiés : « Aucun des États contractants n’expulsera ou ne refoulera […] un réfugié sur les frontières des territoires où sa vie ou sa liberté serait menacée », exige le texte. Le principe de non-refoulement est également réaffirmé par l’Union européenne dans sa Charte des droits fondamentaux.

    Pour parvenir à ce chiffre record, les militants se sont appuyés sur des rapports d’ONG et de groupes de recherche ainsi que sur les données des services gouvernementaux. À noter que ce chiffre ne concerne que les refoulements survenus dans un pays européen vers des États tiers et ne prend pas en compte les expulsions aux frontières intérieures de l’UE. Par ailleurs, une personne peut avoir été refoulée plusieurs fois.
    La Bulgarie, en tête du classement

    Selon les données du rapport, la Bulgarie figure en tête du classement des États de l’UE qui refoulent le plus de migrants. En 2024, les autorités de Sofia ont mené 52 534 « pushbacks » vers la Turquie, indique le texte.

    Cette première place s’explique en partie par la nouvelle adhésion pleine et entière à l’espace Schengen, fin novembre. La Bulgarie est soumise à une forte pression de la part des autres États membres de l’UE dans sa capacité à gérer les flux migratoires. Les questions de sécurité aux frontières figuraient parmi les principales préoccupations qui ont retardé l’entrée de la Bulgarie à l’espace Schengen - l’Autriche et les Pays-Bas ayant dans un premier temps opposé leur veto à une adhésion (https://balkaninsight.com/2024/11/22/austria-signals-shift-in-veto-on-bulgaria-romania-joining-schengen).

    Ainsi ces derniers mois, les témoignages de refoulements dans le pays se multiplient. Lors d’une série de reportages en juin dernier en Bulgarie, InfoMigrants avait rencontré dans la petite ville de Svilengrad, toute proche de la frontière avec la Turquie, un groupe de quatre jeunes Marocains (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/57689/la-police-a-pris-nos-telephones-nos-affaires-notre-argent--les-refoule). Amine*, 24 ans avait dit avoir été refoulé cinq fois. Les autres, âgés de 22 à 30 ans, ont vécu deux, parfois trois « pushbacks ». Lors de ces expulsions, « à chaque fois, la police a pris nos téléphones, nos affaires, notre argent », dénonçait Amine. « Ils prenaient aussi nos vêtements et nos chaussures ».

    Les récits des exilés font également état de violences perpétrées par les autorités. Demandeurs d’asile « obligés de retourner en Turquie à la nage », déshabillés de force ou sévèrement mordus par les chiens des gardes bulgares : dans cette région, une violence considérable est exercée par les gardes-frontières. Des agissements dénoncés à de nombreuses reprises par les ONG, et dont même l’agence européenne de protection des frontières Frontex a eu connaissance (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55503/ils-mont-jete-dans-le-canal--les-pushbacks-en-bulgarie-sont-bien-connu), selon une enquête du réseau Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).

    Ces refoulements peuvent parfois mener à des drames. Selon une étude de la branche viennoise de la Fondation ARD (https://bulgaria.bordermonitoring.eu/2023/12/02/almost-100-people-died-on-their-way-through-bulgaria-withi), en coopération avec Lighthouse Reports, et plusieurs médias, au moins 93 personnes transitant par la Bulgarie sont décédées en 2022 et 2023.

    Début janvier 2025, l’organisation italienne Colletivo rotte balcaniche (collectif de la route des Balkans) et l’association No name kitchen avaient accusé Sofia d’être responsable de la mort de trois migrants égyptiens (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/62203/bulgarie--trois-adolescents-egyptiens-retrouves-morts-de-froid-pres-de). Agés de 15 à 17 ans, ces exilés avaient été retrouvés morts de froid dans la forêt bulgare, à quelques kilomètres de la frontière turque. « L’absence d’aide des autorités et leurs obstructions systématiques aux opérations de sauvetage menées par les activistes ont conduit à la mort des adolescents », avait conclu les militants.

    La police des frontières bulgare avait nié les allégations de négligence délibérée et prétendait avoir « réagi immédiatement à tous les signaux reçus, mais les alertes du 27 décembre contenaient des informations erronées ou trompeuses ».

    De manière générale, le gouvernement bulgare nie pratiquer des « pushbacks », selon Le Monde (https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/02/26/comment-l-ue-a-ferme-les-yeux-sur-le-refoulement-illegal-de-migrants-par-la-). En 2023, Ivaylo Tonchev, un des chefs de la police des frontières bulgare, s’était aussi défendu contre les accusations des ONG. « Il n’y a pas de violence contre les migrants », avait-il déclaré à Euronews (https://fr.euronews.com/2023/07/20/incidents-aux-frontieres-la-bulgarie-est-elle-prete-a-rejoindre-l-espac). « Les seuls cas où la force physique est utilisée, cela se fait conformément à la législation de notre pays. Mais il y a des groupes agressifs [de migrants] qui nous lancent des pierres. »
    La Grèce condamnée par la CEDH

    D’après le rapport des neuf ONG européennes, la Bulgarie est suivie par la Grèce, avec 14 482 refoulements enregistrés à ses frontières en 2024. Depuis des années, Athènes est accusée de « pushbacks » violents en mer Égée et près du fleuve Evros.

    InfoMigrants a récolté de nombreux témoignages d’exilés victimes de ces expulsions illégales. En mai 2020, Samuel*, un Africain avait filmé et raconté son refoulement à la rédaction (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/24690/videotemoignage--les-gardecotes-grecs-ont-repousse-notre-bateau-vers-l). Le jeune homme avait expliqué avoir été repéré dans la nuit par la marine grecque alors que son embarcation approchait de l’île de Lesbos. « Les gardes-côtes nous ont demandé de leur donner notre bidon d’essence. Puis, ils nous ont lancés une corde. Nous pensions qu’ils nous dirigeaient vers Lesbos mais en fait ils nous ont emmenés en plein milieu de la mer. Ils nous ont laissés là et sont repartis. »

    Quelques mois plus tard, au mois de décembre 2020, la rédaction avait publié un témoignage similaire d’un Guinéen de 17 ans, racontant comment des gardes-côtes grecs avaient percé l’avant de son canot, en mer Égée (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/29148/mer-egee--des-hommes-en-uniforme-ont-perce-notre-embarcation). En 2021, InfoMigrants avait même rencontré un ex-policier grec aujourd’hui à la retraite qui a confirmé l’existence de « pushbacks » dans la rivière de l’Evros, entre la Turquie et la Grèce. « Les ’pushbacks’ existent, j’ai moi-même renvoyé 2 000 personnes vers la Turquie », avait-il déclaré sous couvert d’anonymat.

    En mai 2023, une vidéo accablante du New York Times montrait des gardes-côtes grecs remettre des migrants à l’eau, direction la Turquie (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/49036/pushback--une-video-accablante-du-new-york-times-montre-des-gardecotes).

    Cette même année, dans un rapport du mois de novembre, l’ONG Médecins sans frontières (MSF) affirmait déjà que les refoulements illégaux de migrants étaient « devenus la norme », de même que « l’absence criante de protection pour les personnes qui cherchent la sécurité en Grèce » (https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/53007/en-grece-les-refoulements-de-migrants-en-mer-sont-devenus-la-norme-acc).

    Pire encore, selon une enquête de la BBC menée en juin 2024, en trois ans, 43 exilés sont morts en mer Égée après avoir été refoulés par les autorités grecques. Neuf d’entre eux ont été directement jetés à l’eau par les gardes-côtes, et se sont noyés.

    Le 7 janvier 2025, la Grèce a été condamnée pour la première fois par la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (CEDH) dans une affaire de refoulement de demandeurs d’asile. La requérante, une Turque, avait été expulsée le jour-même de son arrivée en Grèce vers la Turquie - puis arrêtée et emprisonnée par les autorités turques. La CEDH a condamné la Grèce a lui verser 20 000 euros.

    D’autres États de l’UE pourraient bientôt connaître une sentence similaire. Début février, la CEDH a commencé à examiner trois affaires contre la Pologne, la Lettonie et la Lituanie concernant des allégations de refoulement vers la Biélorussie.

    Malgré les preuves qui s’accumulent, Athènes n’a pourtant jamais reconnu l’existence de ces refoulements et a toujours nié les pratiquer.

    Contactée par InfoMigrants, la Commission européenne rappelle qu’il « appartient aux États membres de gérer et de protéger leurs frontières extérieures dans le cadre juridique de l’UE » et qu’il est de leur « responsabilité d’enquêter sur toute allégation d’actes répréhensibles ». « Dans le cadre de nos activités de gestion des frontières, les États membres doivent veiller à ce que leurs obligations en vertu du droit européen et international soient respectées, y compris la protection des droits fondamentaux ».
    Hausse des interceptions au large de la Libye

    Après la Bulgarie et la Grèce, championnes des « pushbacks », on retrouve dans le rapport la Pologne (13 600 refoulements), la Hongrie (5 713), la Lettonie (5 388), la Croatie (1 905) ou encore la Lituanie (1 002). Plusieurs de ces pays, qui accusent la Biélorussie de vouloir déstabiliser l’Europe en laissant passer les migrants, ont d’ailleurs légalisé ces dernières années les refoulements à leurs frontières, en dépit du droit international.

    L’étude couvre également le Liban et la Libye car, notent les auteurs, les interceptions en mer ont été effectuées avec le soutien « direct et étendu » de l’Italie, de Chypre et plus généralement des instances européennes. Ainsi l’an dernier, 21 762 interceptions ont eu lieu en mer Méditerranée, au large de la Libye, contre 17 000 en 2023.

    En 2017, l’UE a signé un accord avec la Libye dans le but d’empêcher les migrants de traverser la Méditerranée et de rejoindre l’Italie. À travers ce partenariat, sans cesse renouvelé, l’Europe donne concrètement aux autorités libyennes la charge de la coordination des sauvetages au large de leurs côtes (tâche qui incombait auparavant au centre de coordination de sauvetage maritime de Rome ou de La Valette, à Malte). L’Italie équipe et forme aussi les gardes-côtes libyens pour intercepter les exilés en Méditerranée.

    Cette collaboration controversée est régulièrement dénoncée par les ONG et les instances internationales, en raison des dérapages, menaces, intimidations des autorités libyennes en mer contre les migrants et les humanitaires.

    Par ailleurs, lorsqu’ils sont interceptés en mer et renvoyés sur le sol libyen, les migrants sont transférés dans des centres de détention, gérés par le Département de lutte contre l’immigration illégale (DCIM), où ils subissent des tortures, des violences sexuelles, de l’extorsion, et sont soumis à du travail forcé.
    Les refoulements, « une pratique systématique » au sein de l’UE

    L’ensemble de ces refoulements, « en forte augmentation », observés aux frontières extérieures de l’Europe « sont devenus une pratique systématique dans le cadre de la politique migratoire de l’UE », estiment les ONG. « Les rapports continus sur les refoulements montrent l’échec de l’UE à faire respecter les droits de l’Homme ».

    Les humanitaires et les chercheurs regrettent le manque de réaction des institutions européennes qui donne, de fait, un blanc-seing aux pays pointés du doigt. « Il y a quelques années, la Commission européenne, garante du respect des traités de l’UE en matière d’asile, condamnait ces pratiques. Aujourd’hui, on entend beaucoup moins de réprobations de sa part, elle a perdu beaucoup de son influence sur ses membres », avait déclaré en octobre Matthieu Tardis, chercheur spécialisé sur l’immigration et co-directeur de Synergie Migrations.

    *Les prénoms ont été modifiés.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/63062/plus-de-120-000-refoulements-de-migrants-aux-frontieres-de-lue-en-2024
    #Europe #union_européenne #chiffres #statistiques #2024 #migrations #réfugiés #push-backs #rapport #Bulgarie #Grèce #Libye #DCIM #Méditerranée #mer_Egée #Evros

    • Pushed, Beaten,Left to Die - European pushback report 2024

      17.02.2025 Asylum and integration policies
      Pushed, Beaten,Left to Die - European pushback report 2024
      Large_snimka_zaslona_2025-02-17_161644

      Pushed, Beaten,Left to Die - European pushback report analyzes data on pushbacks from EU member states to third countries in 2024, highlighting ongoing violations of international and EU law.

      It draws from NGO reports, research groups, human rights organizations, UN agencies, government services and interviews with organizations active in Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Finland, and Bulgaria. In total, 120.457 pushbacks were recorded, underscoring the persistence of this practice.

      Overall, the trend of normalizing pushbacks persists, requiring stronger enforcement and greater accountability from both member states and EU institutions. The report concludes with recommendations for the EU, its member states, and Frontex to address these ongoing human rights violations.

      This report is a collaboration between:
      11.11.11 (Belgium), Hungarian Helsinki Committee, We Are Monitoring Association (Poland), Centre for Peace Studies (Croatia), Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), Sienos Grupė (Lithuania), Centre for Legal Aid – Voice in Bulgaria (CLA), Foundation Mission Wings (Bulgaria), I Want to Help Refugees/Gribu palīdzēt bēgļiem (Latvia).

      https://www.cms.hr/en/azil-i-integracijske-politike/protjerani-pretuceni-ostavljeni-da-umru
      #rapport

  • Exclusif : la #Commission_européenne s’apprête à proposer des « #centres_de_retour » pour les migrants

    La Commission européenne réfléchit à une nouvelle législation européenne sur le #retour des migrants, alors que de nombreux pays insistent sur la nécessité d’adopter une ligne dure.

    La Commission européenne est désormais prête à inclure les « centres de retour » situés en dehors des frontières de l’Union et à partir desquels les migrants peuvent être renvoyés dans leur pays d’origine dans une prochaine proposition législative visant à accélérer le retour des demandeurs d’asile déboutés. Cette information émane des « minutes » d’une réunion informelle des ministres de l’Intérieur de l’UE qui s’est tenue la semaine dernière et qu’euronews a pu consulter.

    Lors du Conseil informel qui s’est tenu à Varsovie le 30 janvier, le nouveau commissaire autrichien à l’immigration, Magnus Brunner, a discuté de propositions « innovantes » pour la gestion de l’immigration avec des représentants des Etats membres de l’espace Schengen et des institutions de l’UE (https://fr.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/10/15/delocalisation-des-migrants-hors-de-lue-la-commission-europeenne-favora). A ce stade, il a surtout été question de la #législation sur les #retours, d’après le compte-rendu.

    Les réunions informelles du Conseil sont des rassemblements réguliers des États membres et des institutions de l’UE, organisés par la présidence tournante du Conseil de l’UE, cette fois-ci dirigée par la Pologne, qui a accueilli l’événement dans sa capitale.

    Interrogé par euronews, un porte-parole de la Commission a refusé de commenter les informations divulguées.

    La proposition de l’UE visant à accélérer le retour des migrants devrait être publiée par la Commission dès la fin de ce mois, donnant ainsi le coup d’envoi du processus législatif.

    Le commissaire Brunner a proposé des « règles plus strictes en matière de #détention » et la « possibilité de développer des centres de retour » au cours de la réunion, selon le document.

    Les centres de retour sont des lieux proposés en dehors de l’UE, où les personnes dont la demande d’asile a été rejetée au sein de l’Union pourraient être envoyées avant d’être renvoyées dans leur pays d’origine. C’est le genre de solution que l’Italie a déjà mis en place après un accord avec l’Albanie, mais qui soulève beaucoup de questions juridiques.

    L’#Autriche, la #Bulgarie, la #République_tchèque, le #Danemark, l’#Allemagne, la #Grèce, l’#Italie, la #Lettonie et #Malte ont accueilli favorablement la proposition de centres de retour et l’ont décrite comme « un moyen de #dissuasion possible de l’#immigration_irrégulière ».

    Les décisions en matière d’immigration sont prises à la majorité qualifiée, ce qui signifie qu’au moins 15 des 27 États membres représentant au moins 65 % de la population de l’Union européenne doivent approuver la proposition.

    Lisbonne et Madrid ont émis des doutes

    D’autres Etats membres, tels que le Portugal et l’Espagne, ont émis des « #doutes » d’un point de vue juridique et opérationnel, tandis que d’autres, tels que l’Irlande et la Belgique, ont « souligné la nécessité de mesures réalistes et réalisables, dans le respect des #droits_fondamentaux », selon le compte-rendu.

    Lors de son audition de confirmation au Parlement européen à l’automne dernier, M. Brunner avait déclaré que l’Union européenne devait rester « ouverte » à l’exploration de « nouvelles idées » pour freiner l’immigration irrégulière.

    L’établissement de ces centres pourrait se faire d’une manière « humaine et juridiquement saine », avait-il déclaré à l’époque, ajoutant qu’une réflexion plus approfondie était nécessaire pour « découvrir à quoi ce type de concept pourrait ressembler » dans la pratique.

    Les organisations humanitaires ont déjà rejeté cette initiative, affirmant que ces centres conduiraient à des détentions sans fin et à des souffrances endémiques. La législation européenne actuelle interdit aux autorités d’envoyer des migrants contre leur gré dans des pays avec lesquels ils n’ont pas de lien.

    Mais la pression politique exercée pour améliorer le #taux_d'expulsion a eu raison de ces avertissements, favorisant une approche plus stricte dans de nombreux États membres.

    La présidente de la Commission, #Ursula_von_der_Leyen, a également soutenu fermement les « centres de retour » dans une lettre adressée aux dirigeants de l’UE avant un sommet de deux jours à Bruxelles dominé par les discussions sur l’immigration en octobre dernier. Dans cette lettre, Mme Von der Leyen estimait qu’un protocole de migration conclu entre l’Italie et l’Albanie - qui a fait l’objet d’une contestation juridique - pourrait déterminer les prochaines étapes de la politique migratoire de l’UE.

    Autres détails de la future #loi

    Mme Brunner a également proposé d’introduire une obligation pour les personnes renvoyées de « coopérer et d’énoncer des conséquences claires » en cas de non-respect des règles, de renforcer les règles pour les « personnes renvoyées qui représentent une #menace_pour_la_sécurité » et de faciliter la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions de retour au sein de l’Union.

    Les ministres du Danemark, de l’Islande, du Liechtenstein, de la Lituanie, de Malte, de la Norvège, de la Roumanie, de la Slovénie et de la Suède ont salué les « obligations claires des rapatriés et les sanctions » pour ceux qui refusent de coopérer.

    Plusieurs pays ont accepté l’idée d’une #reconnaissance_mutuelle des décisions de retour entre les Etats membres, la France étant la seule à s’y opposer totalement, selon le compte-rendu.

    L’Espagne, soutenue par le Portugal, la Roumanie, la Slovaquie et l’Islande, a demandé un renforcement du rôle de #Frontex, l’agence européenne des frontières, pour les retours. L’agence « a accepté la proposition [...] et a souligné la nécessité d’avoir des ressources adéquates pour cela », selon le compte-rendu.

    La présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, a annoncé dans son discours de réélection l’été dernier qu’elle avait l’intention de tripler le personnel de Frontex.

    Enfin, le document indique que la plupart des Etats membres considèrent qu’il est préférable de rédiger la loi sous la forme d’une #directive plutôt que d’un #règlement, afin de donner aux Etats membres plus de #flexibilité dans son #application.

    Suspension du #droit_d'asile

    Le procès-verbal fait également état d’une discussion sur le trafic de migrants aux frontières de la Russie et du Bélarus, sous le titre « #armement_des_migrants ».

    M. Brunner a rappelé aux États membres qu’ils peuvent prendre les « mesures nécessaires pour s’opposer aux acteurs hostiles » qui envoient des migrants aux frontières de l’UE. Cependant, toute action contre ces #acteurs_hostiles pouvant avoir un impact sur les demandeurs d’asile doit être considérée comme une « mesure exceptionnelle » et doit être conforme au droit international, a-t-il déclaré.

    À cet égard, la Suède a présenté la #suspension des régimes d’asile « dans des circonstances exceptionnelles » comme une réponse possible à ces « acteurs hostiles ».

    Cette idée reflète des initiatives similaires prises récemment par la Finlande et la Pologne.

    Prochaines étapes

    Après la publication de la proposition sur le retour des demandeurs d’asile, la Commission européenne entamera son processus législatif, qui dure généralement deux ans.

    Le commissaire Brunner sera chargé de mettre en œuvre le nouveau #pacte_pour_l'immigration_et_l'asile, la réforme de grande envergure que l’#Union_européenne a achevée en mai après près de quatre ans de négociations acharnées. Le Parlement considère le nouveau pacte comme une réussite historique et souhaite que tous les États membres se conforment aux nouvelles règles.

    Cependant, la Pologne et la Hongrie ont ouvertement déclaré qu’elles ne le feraient pas, ce qui alimente les craintes que la réforme complexe ne s’effondre avant d’avoir eu la chance de produire des résultats.

    Le nouveau commissaire s’est engagé à poursuivre en justice ceux qui ne respectent pas les règles. « Si cela s’avère nécessaire et justifié, des procédures d’infraction pourraient être engagées », a-t-il déclaré.

    https://fr.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/04/exclusif-la-commission-europeenne-sapprete-a-proposer-des-centres-de-re
    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #expulsions #innovation #renvois #guerre_hybride #externalisation

    via @karine4

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur l’#accord entre #Italie et #Albanie pour la construction de #centres d’accueil (sic) et identification des migrants/#réfugiés sur le territoire albanais...

    https://seenthis.net/messages/1043873

  • Deportations: New role for #Frontex as EU pushes for more “voluntary” returns

    A special report by Hope Barker and Anas Ambri: The EU has been funding new accelerated asylum and deportation procedures in Bulgaria, including a new “assisted voluntary return” project. Increasing “voluntary” returns is a key part of the plan to increase deportations from the EU, with Frontex playing an increasing role. The project targets individuals in detention. Experts question whether such procedures can ever be truly voluntary.

    In August 2023, Bulgarian and European Commission (EC) officials met to discuss a “targeted assisted voluntary return project” as part of the Commission’s Pilot Project in the country.

    The “Pilot Project for fast asylum and returns procedures” had been launched in Bulgaria and Romania a few months prior to create “ad hoc solutions” to some of the issues preventing the two countries from finalising their accession to the Schengen area.

    Some of these “solutions” included the continuation of pushbacks against people on the move. Balkan Insight revealed the widespread – if not systematic – pushbacks at the EU’s eastern and south-eastern borders in February last year.

    Another “solution” was the implementation of “an updated AVR [Assisted Voluntary Return] programme in Bulgaria, with the deployment of additional Frontex return counsellors and technical assistance from the Commission,” according to a document obtained by Statewatch through an access to documents request.

    What are “assisted voluntary returns”?

    Voluntary returns are repatriations of non-EU citizens to their country of origin “based on a free and informed choice.” They differ from mandatory returns (when a deportation decision has been issued) and from forced returns (when individuals are deported by force).

    The “assisted” component in AVR usually comes in the form of financial and logistical support to individuals. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), an arm of the United Nations, has historically been in charge of implementing such programmes in Bulgaria.

    EU-funded AVR programme in Bulgaria

    Shortly after the March 2023 technical mission, the EC announced the launch of a new AVR programme in the country for early 2024, to be supported under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).

    This new AVR programme increased the incentives and reintegration assistance to beneficiaries. The cash incentive, usually handed to individuals shortly before they depart, was increased from €150 to a maximum of €900.

    Reintegration assistance – in-kind contribution to support an individual’s reintegration after their return – was also increased from €1,000 to a maximum of EUR 3,000, and for families from €2,000 to a maximum of €7,000.

    Frontex’s involvement reflects an expansion of its mandate across the bloc. In 2019, a new Regulation gave the agency new powers, including in deportations.

    In April 2021, the European Commission released its first EU-wide strategy on voluntary return and reintegration which cemented the role of Frontex as “the operational arm of the common EU system of returns.”

    One lesser-examined aspect of Frontex’ role in the EU’s new deportation system has been its takeover of return counselling services for individuals subject to deportation orders or in detention.

    Frontex’s takeover of return counselling

    Return counselling is the provision of information to people on the move on the available options for them returning to their country of origin or residence.

    Depending on the circumstances of the individual, this can include information on the “obligation to leave the country and the consequences of not leaving,” and encouragement of “(assisted) voluntary return.” Advocates of the practice claim that it can be used as a way to “prioritise clarity, individual rights and agency, and honesty.”

    In January 2022, Frontex introduced return counselling as a job profile within its Standing Corps of border guards. Those taking up the role are trained using a curriculum developed with the Vienna-based International Centre for Migration Policy Development, as part of the latter’s CADRE project.

    In 2023, Frontex deployed four return counsellors to Bulgaria, where they conducted 1,547 counselling sessions, according to an agency spokesperson. The vast majority of these sessions (1,382, or 89%) were conducted between May and September as part of the Pilot Project.

    At least one of these return counsellors was deployed inside the Bulgaria’s Lyubimets detention centre, according to a November 2023 fact-finding mission report from the European Commission.

    Lyubimets is a closed pre-removal centre for individuals who have received a deportation order, or who are considered to be a security risk. Under Bulgarian law, individuals can be kept in detention for up to 18 months if a mandatory removal order is issued against them.

    According to a European Commission document from 2023, Lyubimets “is comprised of a building and container complex that can house families and single men amounting to a total capacity of 1892 places,” though an inspection by the Bulgarian ombudsman in July of that year put the capacity at 660.

    Based on an interview given by one of Frontex’ return counsellors deployed in Bulgaria in 2023, most of the counselling was offered to individuals who recently arrived in the country.

    Rights and missing safeguards in return counselling

    Valentin Feneberg, Research Associate at the Institute of Political Science at Leuphana University in Germany, told Statewatch: “If Frontex is tasked with providing this counselling immediately upon arrival, it is essential that individuals have guaranteed access to independent legal advisors, as well as a clear and comprehensive understanding of their rights, including the right to seek asylum.”

    However, access to legal aid is difficult in the Lyubimets centre, as the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee is the only NGO that is able to regularly visit.

    Feneberg, who studies the unintended consequences of AVR programmes, said that “independent monitoring by human rights organisations to guarantee fairness and transparency” would also be needed.

    “While I find it difficult to see how Frontex’s Return Counselling could become the sole form of counselling available to rejected asylum seekers, if this were to happen, these safeguards would need to be significantly strengthened to protect individuals’ rights,” he told Statewatch.

    Given the absence of such safeguards, many suspect that the true purpose of return counselling activities inside the detention camps has little to do with encouraging free and informed choices.

    Not-so-voluntary returns

    In May 2021, Statewatch revealed how the European Commission wanted to use detention to “increase the uptake of voluntary returns at early stages of the return process.”

    In the view of Reinhard Schweitzer, Research Professor on Migration at Universitat Abat Oliba CEU in Barcelona, there is nothing voluntary about returns conducted from within detention.

    “Assuming that there is something that we can call voluntariness, it would have at least three elements. The most obvious is the absence of coercion… The decision [to return] must also be based on information that is unbiased and can be relied on, that is trusted, which is a very subjective element, and that is objective, in the sense that it does not just portray the possibilities that are made available by the government. This is linked to the third element: availability of acceptable alternatives,” Schweitzer explained.

    In June 2022, Schweitzer published a study into how the exclusion of civil society from voluntary returns programmes negatively impacted the “voluntariness” of the returns conducted in two different countries, including his native Austria. In his view, it is clear that Frontex’ involvement would have a similar effect.

    “Voluntary” returns: Fortress Europe’s new frontier

    With the new Commission finally voted in, it’s clear that deportations remain a top priority.

    The new Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, has committed to drafting a new deportation law in the first 100 days of his mandate, at the behest of several Members of the European Parliament as well as EU member states.

    Rumours suggest that the file, designed to replace the 2008 Returns Directive, will be a Regulation, making it directly legally binding on all member states. It will come alongside ongoing discussions on “return hubs”, better described as deportation camps, in non-EU states.

    Until these new rules are proposed and agreed, the EU’s approach will be governed by the 2008 Directive, its 2021 returns strategy and the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

    Under the Pact, people arriving at the bloc’s external borders will be pre-screened and then sorted into so-called ordinary and accelerated border procedures.

    According to the new rules, most people will be funneled into fast-track procedures which last a maximum of 12 weeks and take place in de facto detention at the external border.

    The areas in which people will be held will not technically qualify as member state territory, due to the newly introduced “legal fiction of non-entry.” If people are rejected during the accelerated procedure, they will enter a return border procedure – also fast-tracked.

    Other EU countries have been using accelerated procedures for years. Since November 2020, rejected asylum applications in Cyprus come with a deportation order. Individuals accused of threatening “public order” are put into indefinite detention. Many are forced to sign up for voluntary returns to be released.

    As part of the Pilot Project, the European Commission recommended that Bulgaria amend its national law to allow for rejection and return decisions to be issued simultaneously. In February 2024, Bulgaria did just that.

    Under the Pact, people detained at external borders will be similarly advised – or pressured – to enrol in voluntary return schemes.

    Expanding role for Frontex

    Frontex’s involvement in voluntary returns will come with an expansion of its size and functions. Return counsellors will be deployed to centres at the EU’s external borders where pre-screening and accelerated border procedures are carried out. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament in July that Frontex could triple its Standing Corps to 30,000 during her new mandate.

    Frontex’s Management Board, on the other hand, has asked the agency to train more states on return counselling. The goal is now to train 160 individuals in return counselling in five different member states in 2024, up from 75 staff in five states in 2023.

    This newfound interest in return counselling is anything but altruistic: as part of the Pact, states can count their financial and operational contribution to counselling activities as “solidarity” measures.

    Rather than relocating new arrivals across the bloc to increase the sharing of responsibility, states can instead choose to finance voluntary returns and return counselling.

    “Anti-solidarity”

    Reinhard Schweitzer, the research professor, noted the “insidious” way this solidarity mechanism could be abused.

    “I think it would be a very comfortable thing for the [current] Austrian government to say: ‘instead of taking in people, we send our counsellors there to help deport people’,” he told Statewatch.

    “I’m surprised that it’s really called a solidarity mechanism, because it’s a twist of what solidarity is supposed to mean. It’s anti-solidarity,” he concluded.

    Frontex did not respond to a request for comment from Statewatch.

    A spokesperson for the European Commission said: “Efficient border management must be firmly rooted in the respect of fundamental rights, including human dignity and the principle of non-refoulement.”

    “Bulgarian authorities, as all EU Member States, must fully respect obligations under the asylum and international law, including ensuring access to the asylum procedure. It is the responsibility of Member States to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing,” they added.

    https://www.statewatch.org/news/2025/january/deportations-new-role-for-frontex-as-eu-pushes-for-more-voluntary-return

    #retours_volontaires #migrations #renvois #expulsions #réfugiés #Bulgarie #frontières

  • #Bulgaria. Frontiera di morte
    https://radioblackout.org/2025/01/bulgaria-frontiera-di-morte

    La Bulgaria, paese recentemente entrato nell’area Schengen intende dimostrare a Bruxelles di saper controllare le proprie frontiere, specialmente quelle con i paesi dai quali transitano i migranti. Le politiche migratorie europee continuano a mietere vittime anche in questa zona dell’Unione, dove a fine anno sono morti tre ragazzini minorenni provenienti dall’Egitto. Ad attivisti ed attiviste […]

    #L'informazione_di_Blackout #arresto_no_border_in_bugaria #frontiere_uccidono #morire_assiderati #no_name_kitchen #rotte_balcaniche #Turchia
    https://cdn.radioblackout.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-14-virginia-bulgaria.mp3

  • Après une longue attente, la #Roumanie et la #Bulgarie accèdent pleinement à l’espace Schengen

    Déjà un pied dans la zone avec la levée des contrôles en mars 2024 dans les aéroports et ports maritimes, la Roumanie et la Bulgarie ont intégré complètement mercredi l’espace Schengen. C’est « le plus grand succès » de 2024, a salué dans ses vœux le Premier ministre roumain Marcel Ciolacu.

    https://www.france24.com/fr/info-en-continu/20241231-apr%C3%A8s-une-longue-attente-la-roumanie-et-la-bulgarie-%C3%A0-1

    #espace_Schengen #Schengen

  • Frontex in Bulgaria, la consegna del silenzio
    https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Bulgaria/Frontex-in-Bulgaria-la-consegna-del-silenzio-233765

    Gli ufficiali Frontex dell’UE dispiegati tra Bulgaria e Turchia verrebbero intimiditi e costretti al silenzio di fronte a respingimenti e brutalità contro migranti e rifugiati, mettendo a rischio la credibilità dell’agenzia. Queste le pesanti conclusioni di un’indagine giornalistica di BIRN

  • EU Border Force Officers Intimidated into Silence on Migrant Abuse in Bulgaria

    Documents obtained by BIRN show that EU #Frontex officers deployed to Bulgaria’s border with Turkey are being intimidated into silence in the face of pushbacks and brutality against migrants and refugees, prompting warnings that the agency’s credibility is on the line.

    The woman was “begging” and “crying for mercy”, but the Frontex officers weren’t in charge. “Don’t make me angry,” the Bulgarian border guard responded. Returning from the woods with her four fellow migrants, the guard forced them all to crawl through a hole in the fence, back into Turkey.

    That’s the account of two officers of the European Union’s border agency, Frontex, who accompanied the Bulgarian border guard on a regular night patrol on Bulgaria’s southeastern frontier with Turkey.

    “In the [patrol] car,” the officers reported, “the Bulgarian officer confessed he felt sorry for the woman, but he had orders from his superior to push back all the ‘Talibans’,” a term used by Bulgarian border guards for migrants and refugees trying to cross from Turkey.

    They said their Bulgarian colleague “instructed” them not to file a report to Frontex on what was an obvious ‘pushback’, the forced and illegal return of migrants and refugees before they even have a chance to stake their case for asylum.

    The Frontex officers ignored him and the Bulgarians suspected as much; the officers spoke of feeling “hunted” and voiced “fears about their safety”. Frontex eventually pulled them out, “for their own protection”.

    The incident, which occurred in December last year, is detailed in one of eight Serious Incident Reports – used by Frontex for recording and investigating allegations of rights violations in its operations – obtained by BIRN alongside other internal documents concerning rights violations on the Bulgarian-Turkey border under the agency’s watch.

    Taken together, these documents paint a picture of a Frontex deployment under intense pressure from Bulgaria’s border police to turn a blind eye to recurrent pushbacks and abuse of migrants and refugees.

    But while the officers in the case of the woman resisted that pressure, others have not.

    A week after the woman was forced to crawl through the border, Jonas Grimheden, the head of Frontex’s internal rights watchdog, the Fundamental Rights Office, FRO, wrote to Anton Zlatanov, Bulgaria’s border police chief, saying that on multiple occasions Frontex border guards had “directly witnessed violations committed by Bulgarian officers” against migrants and refugees trying to enter the EU.

    The FRO, he said, had collected “numerous credible accounts related to pressure used by Bulgarian border guards against Frontex deployed officers not to report their observations”.

    BIRN’s findings raise fresh questions for Hans Leijtens, who took over as Frontex executive director in March last year with a vow that the agency would never again turn a blind eye to rights violations on the EU’s borders. Leijtens replaced Fabrice Leggeri, who resigned the previous year over the findings of an investigation by EU anti-fraud agency OLAF that implicated Frontex in pushbacks.

    Yet Frontex officers are still complaining of pressure from Bulgarian border officers to keep quiet or face retaliation and “harassment”, all while senior EU officials in public champion Bulgaria’s efforts to protect the boundaries of the bloc.

    According to one FRO document seen by BIRN, officers “often felt helpless and inadequate to react, citing also language barriers, short decision-making times and feeling vulnerable vis-a-vis the Bulgarian officers”.

    During a January meeting of the Frontex Management Board, a senior official of the European Commission, Henrik Nielsen, who sits on the board, warned of yet more damage to the agency’s reputation, according to minutes of the meeting obtained by BIRN via a Freedom of Information request.

    Expressing concern at attempts to “circumvent or hinder reporting obligations and SIRs”, Nielsen stressed that “a credible reporting mechanism is at the core of the credibility of the Agency itself, and at the core of the argument that more Frontex presence can improve the situation on the ground”.

    That presence was tripled earlier this year.

    ‘He looked me in the eyes and fired’

    Yahia Homsi says he will never forget June 13, 2024. It was a Thursday, and Homsi, a Syrian, was at work as an outreach officer in Bulgaria’s biggest refugee reception centre, training in the gym with minors who had crossed the border into the European Union country without family. A Syrian boy walked in.

    “I want to file a claim against the police,” Homsi recalled him saying. “They shot at me and I won’t stay silent.”

    The boy showed Homsi a wound on his right thigh and medical records from the hospital in the coastal city of Burgas.

    The records, obtained by BIRN, state: “Gunshot wound to the right hip joint from an attempted illegal border crossing.” The wound was caused by a rubber bullet.

    Homsi took the boy to Mission Wings, the NGO he works for and which reported the case to the Bulgarian interior ministry and State Agency for Refugees, as well as to Frontex.

    In an interview with BIRN in early July, the boy, who was 15 and originally from the war-scarred city of Deir ez-zor in eastern Syria, recounted his ordeal.

    Travelling with a group of around 20 migrants and refugees, he had spent days wandering around the forests of Turkey, trying to find the right moment and location to cross the border. He said he had already been pushed back nine times. It was May and a light rain was falling. The group crossed, and was quickly confronted by masked men with guns. The group scattered.

    “The police started shooting everywhere,” the boy told BIRN. “Not in the air, but at our feet.”

    Chased by one of them, the boy stumbled and fell to the ground.

    “He was trying to scare me by pointing a gun at my body,” the boy recalled. “He shot once, intentionally, in my leg, and twice close to my legs.”

    “He looked me in the eyes and fired. I couldn’t see his face because he was wearing a black mask. I only saw his eyes.”

    According to the boy’s account, the border guards spent more than an hour discussing what to do with him as he writhed in pain on the ground. Eventually, he was taken to hospital in the coastal city of Burgas. There, after surgery, he said he was questioned by police, who asked whether he had attacked the officer before the officer shot him. The boy said he didn’t.

    He was sent to a detention centre in Lyubimets, south-central Bulgaria, and moved two weeks later to the open reception centre, Bulgaria’s largest, in nearby Harmanli, where he asked for help from Homsi.

    Less than a week after the interview, the boy disappeared, Mission Wings told BIRN. They said he had continued his journey to western Europe.

    In a written response to BIRN, the Bulgarian border police confirmed an incident on May 10 involving 19 “illegal migrants” and four army Special Forces officers, which support border police operations on the Bulgarian-Turkish frontier.

    According to the response, the officers first fired shots into the air but the group continued to run. One of the migrants, it said, tried to hit one of the officers with a rock.

    “Acting in self-defence, the serviceman shot him with a rubber bullet in the area of the right leg.”

    It said a report on the incident was sent to the military police and the joint special operations command.

    Mission Wings director Diana Dimova disputed the authorities’ account, saying the case involved “very serious crimes”.

    “We have a concrete case with enough evidence – the case of an unaccompanied child,” Dimova told BIRN. “And someone is trying to cover up this crime.”

    Mission Wings handed over the evidence gathered to the Serious Incidents Team at Grimheden’s FRO.

    “We are aware of this case and are looking into it,” Grimheden told BIRN. “Since our investigation is ongoing, I do not want to go into any details.”

    Were it not for Dimova’s persistence, however, the case of the boy’s shooting, like so many other incidents of alleged brutality on Bulgaria’s 259-kilometre border with Turkey, would have likely passed without notice.

    Warm words, ever deeper cooperation

    Frontex stepped up its presence in Bulgaria under Joint Operation Terra, which was launched in early 2022. Its officers take part in joint patrols with Bulgarian border guards in all-terrain jeeps and vans equipped with thermal-vision technology paid for with EU money.

    Leijtens inspected the operations in late February. Standing next to a fence topped with razor wire near the Kapitan Andreevo border crossing, the busiest land border crossing point in Europe, the Dutchman expressed support for Bulgaria’s long-awaited accession to Europe’s passport-free Schengen zone.

    “Bulgaria is a very important partner,” he was quoted as saying by Reuters. “Without Bulgaria we cannot protect our external borders.”

    He also issued a warning. “We are guarding not only the borders, but also EU values,” Leijtens said.

    In a confidential memo prepared just days before the visit to the Bulgarian border, Grimheden briefed Leijtens on the accounts of Frontex officers who said they had been instructed by Bulgarian border police not to report details of systematic pushbacks.

    Serious or persistent rights violations would normally require Frontex to suspend operations, yet during his trip to the border Leijtens announced the opposite – a tripling of the Frontex presence to 500 officers.

    A few days later, European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen announced a new strategic partnership between the Commission, EU agencies and Bulgaria “to strengthen the EU’s external borders”, covering areas such as border management, asylum procedures, returns and police cooperation.

    The agreement builds on a multi-million-euro pilot project launched in March 2023 that brought EU support for faster asylum procedures and returns as well as additional resources and equipment for border management.

    Von Der Leyen’s February announcement followed a BIRN investigation earlier that month that found Frontex and the Commission had effectively ignored internal reports of violent pushbacks in the process of bringing Bulgaria – partially, for the time being – into the Schengen zone.
    Bulgaria claims ‘zero tolerance’ for human rights violations

    On social media, Frontex has called the Kapitan Andreevo border crossing a “Mecca” for border guards and the “end of the road for all sorts of criminals”.

    The crossing is a key hub for Frontex personnel deployed along Bulgaria’s border with Turkey; visiting in April, Frontex’s second-in-command, Lars Gerdes, lauded the “excellent cooperation” of Bulgarian border police.

    The border, however, is also where human rights organisations and Frontex’s own monitoring body have documented crimes stretching back years. These include migrants and refugees being beaten, stripped, chased and bitten by police dogs and pushed back en masse to Turkey, all committed by Bulgarian officers taking part in Frontex operations.

    According to data compiled by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 9,897 alleged pushbacks took place along Bulgaria’s borders with Turkey and Greece in 2023 involving 174,588 persons.

    Bulgarian authorities have always strenuously denied such allegations.

    “We have zero tolerance for people who disrespect human rights,” Zlatanov, the border police chief, told the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee in April.

    When pressed, Bulgarian officials regularly point to the fact there is no record of such instances in official databases.

    Yet for more than a year now, Grimheden has alerted Frontex top brass to Bulgarian authorities’ “tacit practice of non-reporting of actions severely endangering the fundamental rights of migrants”.
    ‘Attempts to cover up their actions’

    The attempts to silence Frontex border guards are detailed in eight Serious Incident Reports, or SIRs.

    Examining 16 border interventions, the FRO found that on multiple occasions Frontex officers were pressured by their Bulgarian counterparts “to avoid reporting not only of fundamental rights violations observed but also their apprehensions/encounters with migrants”.

    “All these Frontex officers understood that this request was linked to [the] Bulgarian officers’ attempt to cover up their actions and likely the migrants’ subsequent collective expulsion,” it concluded.

    The SIRs, based on testimony taken from six officers on three different Frontex teams, describe in sometimes graphic detail multiple incidents of pushbacks and abuse between September and December last year, witnessed by Frontex officers while on joint patrols with Bulgarian border guards. They include beatings, migrants “groaning” in pain and being threatened with ‘flashlight tasers’ – a powerful torch and stun gun combined – and a Bulgarian officer using an unloaded gun to motion to migrants where they should go.

    One report describes an incident in September 2023 when Frontex officers witnessed a group of some 25 people “kneeling in the presence of two Bulgarian officers” near the border fence that separates Bulgaria from Turkey. Five of them were made to undress, “with their belongings confiscated and being burned”.

    At the end of the shift, “the Frontex team was approached by a Bulgarian team leader who started asking some probing questions and indicated that it would be better not to report anything”, the report states.

    Under the rules of a Frontex deployment, its officers act under the command of the local border force, in this case the Bulgarian. The Frontex officers initially complied and only notified the FRO five weeks later when their deployment ended, despite an obligation to report any suspected rights violations immediately.

    When FRO investigators visited the scene two months after the alleged incident, they found a sign for Sofia pointing towards Turkey.

    Sending migrants ‘to Sofia’ is a euphemism for pushing them back over the border, the Frontex officers told the FRO. The FRO concluded that all 25 individuals were “likely” subjected to “collective expulsion”.

    In its assessment of the incident in December, in which the woman was forced to crawl back through a hole in the border fence, the FRO faulted the officers for not intervening and cited operational rules that all Frontex officers are “obligated to act or refuse a command” that may threaten human rights.

    However, the FRO added, “for such cases, they are not sufficiently prepared by the Agency”.

    Warning that Frontex risks being implicated in “illegal practices”, the FRO called for “a clear instruction from Frontex hierarchy to intervene when observing fundamental rights violations”.

    Asked to respond, a Frontex spokesperson told BIRN: “Frontex is enhancing its instructions and protocols to ensure that our officers are not just observers but are empowered to act when confronted with situations that require intervention to protect fundamental rights.”

    The Bulgarian border police said it had followed up on all SIRs it had received from Frontex and reported back to the agency.

    “No Bulgarian border police officers have been sanctioned in connection with the issued reports as there has been no proven excess of authority,” the border police directorate told BIRN.

    “We strive to minimise incidents at the border,” it added. “Training was conducted for the senior, middle and executive staff on the ground, which had results – since January 1, 2024, there have been no serious incidents related to human rights violations by the Bulgarian border police.”
    Frontex internal complaints mechanism ‘ineffective’

    In March this year, Grimheden submitted a report to the Frontex Management Board saying that the FRO “regularly receives reports of feared repercussions of Frontex officers who are planning to report serious incidents”.

    Three months later, BIRN revealed that Frontex officers deployed in Albania had “implicit instructions not to issue SIRs”.

    EU officials have repeatedly justified Frontex’s expanding footprint at Europe’s borders by arguing that its officers help guarantee that fundamental rights are respected and cases of wrongdoing are duly reported.

    Yet, in the case of Bulgaria, the FRO concluded that “the presence or involvement of Frontex officers in an event is not necessarily a guarantee for fundamental rights compliance”, a phrasing used in multiple SIRs.

    In none of the investigated incidents between September and December 2023 did Frontex officers “intervene in the moments when confronted with wrongdoing”.

    When Frontex was implicated in the pushbacks in the Aegean in 2020, the revelations eventually triggered the downfall of Leijtens’s predecessor, Leggeri.

    In 2024, critics say little appears to have changed.

    In recent months, there has been intense discussion in the senior ranks of Frontex to address the flawed SIR mechanism. In late August, both Leijtens and Grimheden travelled to Sofia to meet senior Bulgarian officials, including Zlatanov, the border police chief, and now former Interior Minister Kalin Stoyanov. BIRN understands that the talks, in part, looked at how to address human rights abuses in Frontex operations and limit further damage to the agency’s reputation.

    “It is very important that Frontex’s internal compliance system is functional to ensure that the Agency is not complicit in human rights violations,” said Dr. Lisa-Marie Komp, an Amsterdam-based lawyer representing a Syrian family who took Frontex to the European Court of Justice arguing the agency should be held accountable for their pushback from Greece to Turkey in 2016. The court dismissed the case in September 2023 but the family has appealed.

    “Reporting incidents is an essential first step in this process,” Komp told BIRN. “The Agency’s internal complaints mechanism has been ineffective and very slow and significant hurdles must be passed when lodging a claim against the Agency at the European Court of Justice.”

    https://balkaninsight.com/2024/09/06/eu-border-force-officers-intimidated-into-silence-on-migrant-abuse-in

    #Bulgarie #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #violence #Turquie #droits_humains

  • Une quinzaine de pays pro-nucléaires se réunissent à Paris pour concrétiser la relance de l’atome
    https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/afp/une-quinzaine-de-pays-pro-nucleaires-se-reunissent-paris-po

    AFP parue le 19 sept. 2024 - 04h00

    Une quinzaine de ministres ont rendez-vous à Paris jeudi et vendredi pour une conférence internationale, sous l’égide de l’#OCDE et du gouvernement suédois, destinée à trouver les leviers d’accélération de la relance du #nucléaire afin de tenir les objectifs climatiques mondiaux.

    Les responsables ainsi que des industriels d’une quinzaine de pays sont attendus, venus des #Etats-Unis, du #Canada, du #Japon, de la #Corée du Sud, de l’Union #européenne (#France, #Pologne, #Bulgarie, #Hongrie, #Estonie, République #tchèque), ainsi que d’Afrique (#Ghana).

    L’objectif pour cette seconde édition de « Roadmaps to New Nuclear 2024 » (Feuilles de route pour le nouveau nucléaire 2024) est d’examiner les « moyens concrets d’honorer les engagements pris au niveau mondial d’accroître la production d’énergie nucléaire pour lutter contre le changement climatique », selon le communiqué de l’Agence pour l’énergie nucléaire (#AEN) de l’OCDE, institution qui rassemble les pays développés.

    Selon l’AEN, il faudrait tripler les capacités nucléaires mondiales d’ici 2050 pour respecter les objectifs de neutralité carbone, en combinant réacteurs existants, réacteurs de nouvelle génération mais aussi de petits réacteurs modulaires (SMR).

  • #Frontex achète des #drones pour une #surveillance renforcée aux frontières de l’UE

    Alors que les États membres demandent à la Commission européenne de renforcer les #frontières_extérieures, l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, Frontex, vient de lancer des appels d’offres d’un montant total d’environ 400 millions d’euros pour l’achat d’#équipements, de drones et d’autres #technologies de surveillance.

    En réponse à la demande des États membres formulée en juillet, la commissaire aux Affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, semble donner suite à leur souhait de renforcer les frontières extérieures de l’UE.

    La commissaire s’est engagée à consolider le régime de visa de l’UE et à lancer un appel à propositions à hauteur de 150 millions d’euros destiné à la « #capacité_de_surveillance_des_frontières » de l’UE.

    Dans des lettres adressées à la Commission en mai et en juin, les États membres ont exhorté l’exécutif européen à intensifier ses efforts pour externaliser l’immigration, en empêchant les exilés en situation irrégulière de poser le pied sur le sol de l’UE.

    Dans le discours prononcé devant le Parlement européen avant sa réélection à la présidence de la Commission en juillet, Ursula von der Leyen a annoncé son intention de tripler les #effectifs de Frontex et de nommer un commissaire à la Méditerranée, afin de s’attaquer aux flux de personnes qui tentent de se rendre dans les États membres du sud de l’UE.

    Cet été, l’agence européenne des frontières, Frontex, a lancé une série d’appels d’offres pour renforcer ses capacités le long des frontières extérieures de l’UE.

    Concrètement, un #appel_d’offres concerne des drones et des services connexes pour la #surveillance_maritime, d’une valeur de 184 millions d’euros, un autre appel d’offres se focalise sur le matériel de surveillance, y compris des #lunettes_de_vision_nocturne, d’une valeur de 19 millions d’euros. Un troisième appel d’offres d’une valeur de 186,5 millions d’euros vise les services de technologies de l’information et de la communication (#TIC). Enfin, un projet pilote de 3 millions d’euros pour des drones aux frontières terrestres est aussi envisagé dans le cadre d’opérations conjointes avec la #Bulgarie.

    La facture totale avoisine les 400 millions d’euros.

    https://www.euractiv.fr/section/international/news/frontex-achete-des-drones-pour-une-surveillance-renforcee-aux-frontieres-de
    #technologie #complexe_militaro-industriel #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #migrations #réfugiés #coût #budget #mer_Méditerranée #Méditerranée

    • Frontex Expands Drone Fleet as EU Intensifies Border Surveillance

      The European Union’s border agency, Frontex, has significantly ramped up its use of drones as part of a broader push to tighten control over the bloc’s external borders, with recent tenders amounting to nearly €400 million.

      This move comes amid growing pressure from EU member states for the European Commission to reinforce border security and prevent irregular migration.

      Frontex’s latest wave of investment includes a €184 million call for maritime surveillance drones, €19 million for night vision surveillance equipment, and €186.5 million for information and communication technology services, as well as a €3 million pilot project for drones monitoring land borders in cooperation with Bulgaria.

      The total expenditure reflects a robust commitment to deploying advanced technologies for border control, as the EU intensifies efforts to externalise migration management and prevent irregular migrants from reaching European shores.
      Heightened Focus on Border Security

      The EU’s border strategy has evolved significantly over the past decade. Member states have increasingly called for stronger border controls to address the migration challenges faced by southern European countries. In response, Frontex has expanded its operational capabilities, including the use of drones for surveillance, particularly along the EU’s external maritime borders in Italy, Malta, and Greece.

      Drones were first integrated into Frontex operations in 2018, contributing to the detection of nearly 5,000 individuals at sea in that year alone. Their use was further formalised in 2019 when the mandate of the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) was broadened to include drones in its air surveillance framework. Since then, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles has become a central element of the EU’s border control strategy.

      In 2020, Frontex awarded contracts worth €100 million to Airbus and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for the deployment of Heron drones, capable of extended flights exceeding 30 hours. These drones have been instrumental in monitoring the Mediterranean Sea, including during the 2023 Messenia migrant boat disaster, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 650 people.
      Controversy Surrounding Drone Use

      Frontex’s use of drones has not been without controversy. In 2022, reports emerged that intelligence gathered by Frontex drones, operated out of Malta, was being used by Libyan authorities to intercept migrant boats in the Mediterranean, resulting in the forced return of thousands of individuals to Libya, a country with a troubling record of human rights violations. A Human Rights Watch report concluded that in 2021, some 10,000 migrants were intercepted and returned to Libya, many of them as a direct result of data provided by EU surveillance aircraft.

      The allegations raised concerns about the role of Frontex in what critics have termed “pushback” operations, where migrants are prevented from entering EU territory without being given the opportunity to seek asylum. These operations have drawn widespread criticism from human rights organisations, who argue that they violate international law and exacerbate the risks faced by vulnerable individuals attempting to cross the Mediterranean.

      Despite these concerns, Frontex has defended its actions, emphasising its focus on combating human trafficking and preventing loss of life at sea. According to the agency, its surveillance efforts are aimed at detecting vessels in distress and alerting national rescue authorities to ensure timely interventions. However, the agency has refrained from addressing the broader criticisms regarding its cooperation with non-EU countries like Libya.
      Expansion of Surveillance Capabilities

      The recent tenders indicate that Frontex is committed to expanding its drone capabilities further, with plans to spend €184 million on maritime drones over the next four years. This represents a marked increase in spending compared to previous years, suggesting a shift towards more consistent and large-scale deployments of drones in border surveillance operations.

      Frontex’s budget has seen significant growth over the past decade, reflecting the increasing political prioritisation of migration control within the EU. In 2025, the agency’s budget is expected to reach nearly €1 billion, a substantial increase from the €233 million allocated in 2016. This cash infusion is intended to support Frontex’s expanding role, which now includes a broader range of responsibilities, from assisting member states with border management to conducting joint operations with non-EU countries.

      According to military analyst Major Rasmus Ross from the Royal Danish Defence College, drones are just one element of a multi-layered approach to border security. While drones provide situational awareness, other technologies and equipment are necessary to create a comprehensive surveillance network capable of responding to a variety of threats.
      Broader Implications for Migration Management

      The increasing reliance on drones for border surveillance has significant implications for how the EU manages migration. For many experts, this shift towards greater surveillance represents an effort to externalise EU borders, pushing migration controls further into non-EU territories with questionable human rights records, such as Libya and Tunisia. By identifying migrant vessels earlier and further from European shores, Frontex can reduce the need for European coastguards to intervene, potentially leaving the responsibility to non-EU countries with less stringent asylum and human rights protections.

      https://eutoday.net/frontex-expands-drone-fleetl