#cont

Fil de discussion commencé en 2020 (fin : 2021) sur le pacte, contenu :
– Migrants : le règlement de #Dublin va être supprimé
– Germany’s #Seehofer cautiously optimistic on EU asylum reform
– Relocation, solidarity mandatory for EU migration policy : #Johansson
– #Droit_d’asile : Bruxelles rate son « #pacte »
– Le #pacte_européen sur l’asile et les migrations ne tire aucune leçon de la « crise migratoire »
– The New Pact on Migration and Asylum. A Critical ‘First Look’ Analysis
– #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration : un “nouveau départ” pour violer les #droits_humains
– Whose Pact ? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum
– First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals
– Pacte européen sur les migrations et l’asile : Le rendez-vous manqué de l’UE
– EU’s new migrant ‘pact’ is as squalid as its refugee camps
– The EU’s #pact_against_migration, Part One
– Towards a European pact with migrants, Part Two
– Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : Afin de garantir un nouveau départ et d’éviter de reproduire les erreurs passées, certains éléments à risque doivent être reconsidérés et les aspects positifs étendus.
– Nouveau Pacte européen  : les migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s traité.e.s comme des « # colis à trier  »
– A “Fresh Start” or One More Clunker ? Dublin and Solidarity in the New Pact
– European Refugee Policy : What’s Gone Wrong and How to Make It Better
– The Future EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion : Ensuring an Approach Inclusive of All
– The New Pact on Migration and Asylum : Turning European Union Territory into a non-Territory
– EU’s proposed screening rules for migrants are based on « failed and violent » Greek law
– Le nouveau Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile
– New pact on migration and asylum. Perspective on the ’other side’ of the EU border
– Impakter | Un « nouveau » pacte sur l’asile et les migrations ?
– The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees. International Experiences on Containment and Mobility and their Impacts on Trust and Rights
– Le nouveau pacte européen : un mécanisme de « solidarité » pour les expulsions et l’externalisation des politiques migratoires

#règlement_Dublin #relocalisation #droits_fondamentaux

#Migration_and_Asylum_Package: New Pact on Migration and Asylum documents adopted on 23 September 2020

►https://seenthis.net/messages/879881

#new_pact #pacte #migrations #UE #EU #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Union_européenne #23_septembre_2020 #Dublin #règlement_dublin #fin #fin_de_Dublin #suppression

Fil de discussion commencée en juillet 2022:
– Première étape dans la mise en œuvre graduelle du #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration_et_l’asile : mode opératoire d’un mécanisme de #solidarité_volontaire
– Croatia announced that it would receive about 60 refugees through relocations from Greece, Italy and Cyprus initiated by France
– First asylum seekers relocated from Italy to France via new EU mechanism

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/966186

#asile #migrations #réfugiés #relocalisations #relocalisation (#relocalisation_bis) #EU #Europe #UE #filtrage #eurodac #pression #mécanisme #Dublin #règlement_Dublin #mécanisme_de_solidarité_volontaire #assistance #contributions_financières #tri #catégorisation #vulnérabilité #flux_secondaires #mouvements_secondaires #pacte_européen #2022 #Europe #EU #UE #demandeurs_d'asile #voluntary_solidarity_mechanism

Fil de discussion commencé en juin 2023 :
– UE : les Vingt-Sept s’accordent sur une réforme de l’asile, après trois ans d’intenses débats
– Il Patto europeo sulla migrazione riduce la protezione per coloro che cercano asilo

►https://seenthis.net/messages/1005698

#accord #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UE #union_européenne #procédure_accélérée #Pacte_sur_l'asile_et_la_migration #relocalisation #mécanisme_de_solidarité #renvois #expulsions #2023 #8_juin_2023 #rétention #détention_administrative

Fil de discussion commencé en juin 2023 :

– Migration policy : Council reaches agreement on key asylum and migration laws
– UE : les Vingt-Sept s’accordent sur une réforme de l’asile, après trois ans d’intenses débats
– Paesi terzi “sicuri”, sicurezza delle persone migranti e propaganda di Stato
– Editorial : Migration Pact Agreement Point by Point
– Décryptage – Pacte UE migration et asile : une approche répressive et sécuritaire au mépris des droits humains
– L’Europe se ferme un peu plus aux réfugiés
– Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : repartir sur d’autres bases

►https://seenthis.net/messages/1005745

#conseil_de_l'Europe #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Dublin #règlement_Dublin #accord #8_juin_2023 #UE #Union_européenne #EU #asylum_procedure_regulation (#APR) #procédure_d'asile #frontières #procédure_accélérée #inadmissibilité #procédure_de_frontière #frontières_extérieures #capacité_adéquate #asylum_and_migration_management_regulation (#AMMR) #mécanisme_de_solidarité #solidarité #relocalisation #contribution_financière #compensation #responsibility_offsets #mouvements_secondaires #abus

Tracking the Pact: Derogations all round in Council’s latest crisis Regulation edit
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1019445

#crise #force_majeure #dérogations #solidarité

EU-Tunisia like UK-Rwanda? Not quite. But would the New Pact asylum reforms change that?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1024544
#pays-tiers_sûrs

The pact kills: l’istituzionalizzazione della fine del diritto d’asilo nell’UE
–-> Un documento dell’Associazione #Open_Your_Borders di Padova sul nuovo patto europeo sulla migrazione e l’asilo.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1050383

Ration non plus ne publie pas la note CNAF France Travail : des députés socialistes dénoncent une réforme « à l’aveugle » des sanctions du RSA
▻https://www.liberation.fr/economie/social/france-travail-des-deputes-socialistes-denoncent-une-reforme-a-laveugle-d

Arthur Delaporte et Jérôme Guedj ont obtenu de la CNAF une étude partielle sur les sanctions imposées aux allocataires de ce revenu minimal de subsistance. Et y trouvent la preuve que « la sanction a pour conséquence d’exclure du RSA ».

En réformant le système de sanction des allocataires du RSA avec son projet de loi « France Travail » (ou « plein emploi »), le gouvernement a-t-il une idée de ce qu’il fait ? C’est la question que veulent poser deux députés socialistes, Arthur Delaporte (Calvados) et Jérôme Guedj (Essonne), alors que l’Assemblée nationale examine cette semaine le texte dans l’hémicycle. Au cœur de leur offensive, lancée ce mardi après-midi en séance, figure un document obtenu lundi soir par Jérôme Guedj auprès de la Caisse nationale d’allocation familiale (CNAF), en sa qualité de coprésident de la Mission d’évaluation et de contrôle des lois de financement de la sécurité sociale (Mecss). « Depuis mai dernier, je demande des éléments sur les sanctions actuellement appliquées, mais le gouvernement ne répond pas », explique Arthur Delaporte. « Jeudi, Jérôme [Guedj] a envoyé un courrier en tant que coprésident de la Mecss au président de la CNAF, qui lui a répondu hier soir tard en disant que ces éléments ne lui ont jamais été demandés par quiconque. Donc le gouvernement ne les a jamais demandés, ce qui est un peu surprenant. »

Interpellé par Arthur Delaporte dans l’hémicycle ce mardi, le ministre du Travail, Olivier Dussopt, a répondu qu’il « n’existe pas de relevé statistique du nombre de radiés (…) au niveau national, et donc nous n’avons pas ce fichier-là ». Pour autant, la CNAF – qui confirme au passage n’avoir pas de suivi statistique sur le sujet des sanctions – est bien parvenue, dans un temps très court et à la demande des députés socialistes, à fournir une étude portant sur un seul mois, celui de juin 2022. Seulement, précise le rédacteur de cette note que Libération a pu consulter, ces données sont « fragiles » et « doivent donc être considérées avec grande prudence, comme des ordres de grandeurs ».

Que disent-elles ? Qu’au mois de juin 2022, les CAF ont sanctionné 31 500 personnes, réparties dans 31 000 foyers bénéficiaires du RSA « pour non-respect des obligations du contrat d’engagement réciproque (“droits et devoirs”) » (1). Ces sanctions, justifiées par une absence de déclaration des ressources ou à la suite d’un contrôle, pouvaient prendre la forme soit d’une suspension du RSA (dans 40 % des cas) ou d’une réduction de l’allocation d’un certain taux ou d’un certain montant (257 euros en moyenne, une somme importante rapportée aux 504 euros qui constituaient le droit moyen au RSA à verser pour l’ensemble des foyers allocataires en juin 2022). Il s’agissait bien, précise la CNAF, d’un « stock » et non d’un flux, ce qui signifie que ces 31 000 foyers, soit 2 % du total des foyers bénéficiaires, constituaient l’intégralité de ceux visés par des sanctions ce mois-là. Et que, relève la note, « la sanction semble avoir un impact sur le droit au RSA à moyen terme », en entraînant « fréquemment une sortie du droit ». Ainsi, alors que près de la moitié des personnes sanctionnées en juin 2022 avaient droit au RSA, elles n’étaient plus que 35 % en octobre, quatre mois plus tard.

L’étude de la CNAF n’avance aucune explication à ce phénomène. Pour Arthur Delaporte, c’est la preuve que « la sanction a pour conséquence d’exclure du RSA, ce que pointent d’ailleurs les associations », et que « la loi va avoir des conséquences extrêmement graves sur l’exclusion, la pauvreté ». « On légifère à l’aveugle », accuse-t-il encore en dénonçant la pauvreté de l’étude d’impact accompagnant le projet de loi. Des arguments que les socialistes ne manqueront pas de faire valoir lors de l’examen de l’article 3 du texte, qui introduit justement une nouvelle sanction dans le système en permettant une suspension quasi immédiate de l’allocation, laquelle peut ensuite être remboursée à l’allocataire (dans une limite de trois mois) s’il est rentré dans le droit chemin.

(1) Il faut y ajouter, précise la note, 13 000 foyers dont le RSA a été suspendu sur décision du Conseil départemental [instance en charge du pilotage local et de l’"insertion", ndc], mais l’étude ne s’attarde pas sur eux.

#CNAF #CAF #déclaration_de_ressources #contrôle #allocataire #suspension #droit_au_RSA #Conseil_départemental

Les salariés de Pôle emploi étaient en grève, ce mardi 26 septembre, pour dénoncer le texte de loi examiné en ce moment à l’Assemblée nationale. Malgré la contestation, le ministre du Travail, Olivier Dussopt, croit dur comme fer à son adoption par le vote.
▻https://www.humanite.fr/social-et-economie/emploi/france-travail-un-projet-purement-coercitif

Face à la mobilisation des agents, le ministre met en avant les 4 000 créations de postes à #Pôle_emploi durant le premier quinquennat et confirme un prochain relèvement du plafond des effectifs de 300 personnes. Le ministre du Travail n’en démord pas. « Pôle emploi, devenu France Travail, aura les moyens de faire face à ses nouveaux engagements tant en termes de services mutualisés que d’accueil et d’accompagnement renforcé des demandeurs d’emploi et allocataires du RSA. »

Pourtant, l’équation est par essence insoluble : « On va demander aux 54 000 agents de suivre et contrôler 2 millions de personnes au RSA qui devront s’inscrire à France Travail. Seule une partie d’entre elles l’étaient jusqu’ici, met en parallèle Loïc Kerdraon. Beaucoup de collègues sont déjà en souffrance. Quand je visite une agence, je vois les salariés en larmes et d’autres qui me confient prendre des cachets. »

à ma prochaine visite chez pôpol, je leur proposerai une goulée de mon kil de rouge pour faire descendre les cachetons.

"La loi sur le plein emploi terrorise les bénéficiaires du RSA" dénonce Sandrine Rousseau
▻https://www.sudradio.fr/sud-radio/la-loi-sur-le-plein-emploi-terrorise-les-beneficiaires-du-rsa-denonce-sandr

Parmi les nouvelles mesures, les conjoints des bénéficiaires de RSA seront inscrits sur les listes de demandeurs d’emploi. "Au nom de quoi ? C’est très grave !" s’indigne Sandrine Rousseau, qui indique qu’elle ne votera pas le texte. La députée dénonce par ailleurs le contrat d’engagement de 15 à 20h d’activité pour les bénéficiaires du RSA. "Le but de la loi est de pouvoir avoir la main sur les #radiations des personnes qui bénéficient du RSA" affirme la députée.
"Il y a des choses scélérates dans cette loi, comme la nécessité de participation active. Mais qu’est-ce qu’une participation active ? J’ai posé cette question dans la commission". Pour Sandrine Rousseau, "cette loi ouvre une forme d’arbitraire. On aide les bénéficiaires du RSA en les respectant et pas en les menaçant. Cette loi les terrorise ! Elle est faite pour qu’ils aient peur de perdre le RSA, c’est scandaleux !" "Il faut un accompagnement mais pas un #accompagnement de #terreur" estime la députée très en colère, car "on n’embête pas les personnes les plus riches".

#menace (et Rectorat de Versailles)

Loi “plein-emploi ” : les seuls #parasites sont les #patrons
▻https://journal.lutte-ouvriere.org/2023/09/21/loi-plein-emploi-les-seuls-parasites-sont-les-patrons_726648

il s’agit aussi et surtout d’avaliser l’idée que les allocataires du RSA, les #chômeurs et, de façon générale, tous ceux qui se débattent avec les malheureuses aumônes distribuées par l’État seraient au fond des parasites. Ainsi, les chômeurs fabriqués par la course au profit, la jeunesse des bourgs ravagés par les fermetures d’usine, les travailleurs broyés par l’exploitation, les mères qui se battent pour élever leurs enfants dans leurs quartiers dégradés seraient responsables des déficits publics. Le gouvernement et, derrière lui, la classe dominante voudraient opposer tous ceux-là aux salariés qui ont un emploi plus ou moins régulier, désormais rebaptisés classe moyenne.

FACE À LA CASSE DU RSA, NOUS OPPOSONS LA NÉCESSAIRE MISE EN PLACE D’UN REVENU MINIMUM D’EXISTENCE, 14/09/2023
▻https://www.jean-jaures.org/publication/face-a-la-casse-du-rsa-nous-opposons-la-necessaire-mise-en-place-dun-re

À l’approche de l’examen à l’Assemblée nationale de la réforme du RSA que le gouvernement souhaiterait conditionner, Arthur Delaporte, Simon Rumel-Sixdenier et Johanna Buchter, avec la contribution de Guillaume Mathelier, proposent avec le groupe socialiste à l’Assemblée nationale la mise en place d’un #revenu_minimum_d’existence inconditionnel, revalorisé, ouvert aux plus de 18 ans, qui serait assorti d’un droit opposable à l’accompagnement pour l’insertion sociale. Plus largement, ils donnent des pistes pour repenser le modèle des prestations sociales.

#PS #protection_sociale #accompagnement #handicap_social

Militari, elicotteri, droni e cani contro i migranti: la Francia blinda il confine con l’Italia

Parigi proroga ancora ancora una volta il ripristino dei controlli alle frontiere aboliti da Schengen. «Non accoglieremo migranti da Lampedusa»

Il ministro dell’Interno Gérald Darmanin aveva chiarito già lunedì scorso, prima dell’incontro con il suo omologo italiano Matteo Piantedosi, che “la Francia non accoglierà migranti da Lampedusa”. 120 uomini a supporto della Géndarmerie, militari, droni, elicotteri e cani a controllare il confine. Parigi proroga ancora ancora una volta il ripristino dei controlli alle frontiere aboliti dal trattato di Schengen salvo casi particolari. È la tensione che sale per la pressione migratoria che nelle ultime settimane preme dall’Italia e allarma l’Europa. A Lampedusa intanto continuano gli arrivi. 13 in un’ora, 402 le persone sbarcate, oltre 1.800 gli ospiti dell’hotspot di Contrada Imbriacola. Attenzione alta anche sul lato est, a Trieste, sulla rotta balcanica.

Il totale di migranti sbarcati in Italia nel 2023 ieri è salito a 131mila. A Ventimiglia ieri c’erano circa 400 migranti. Blindato il valico di Ponte San Ludovico per impedire il passaggio da Ventimiglia. I controlli sono molto fitti tra Garavano e Mentone. Parigi smentisce l’impegno sul campo contro i clandestini anche del “Vigipirate”, il reparto speciale collegato al piano di sicurezza anti-terrorismo strutturato nel 1978 dal Presidente Giscard d’Estaing. Proprio vicino alla frontiera si sta lavorando a una nuova struttura di identificazione che servirà a trattenere nelle ore serali i migranti irregolari individuati dalla parte francese del confine e che verranno riportati in Italia la mattina dopo.

La pressione migratoria è percepita come una “minaccia” a Parigi. I migranti si inerpicano di notte su sentieri anche pericolosi, a strapiombo, per attraversare il confine. “Sono dispiegati 120 militari della Border Force che assicurano, notte e giorno, azioni di sorveglianza della frontiera – spiega la prefettura del dipartimento francese delle Alpes-Maritimes – con missione di dissuasione, raccolta di informazioni sul terreno e individuazione di stranieri in situazione irregolare nella striscia di confine”. Gli agenti del Vigipirate sono chiamati “chasseurs des Alpes”, i cacciatori delle Alpi.

I migranti intanto “hanno ben compreso che sono aumentati i controlli – ha dichiarato all’Ansa Jacopo Colomba di We World – ma loro hanno vissuto frontiere molto più traumatiche di questa. Hanno capito che c’è più polizia ma non vivono questa cosa come un trauma eccessivo. Dalle prime testimonianze che ci hanno fornito comprendono che ci vorrà più di un tentativo per passare e il turn over sarà più lento ma alla fine passeranno“. Qualora dovesse aumentare il flusso di persone aumenterebbero anche i prezzi dei passeurs.

▻https://www.unita.it/2023/09/20/militari-elicotteri-droni-e-cani-contro-i-migranti-la-francia-blinda-il-confin

ECJ Ruling in case C-143/22 ADDE and others regarding rules governing the movement of persons across borders, the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders and the consequences for the applicability of the return directive: Q&A

►https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-246319

#légalité #illégalité #contrôles_frontaliers #contrôles_systématiques_aux_frontières #Slovénie #Autriche

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Border control, asylum and immigration – Regulation (EU) 2016/399 – Article 32 – Temporary reintroduction of border control by a Member State at its internal borders – Article 14 – Refusal of entry – Equation of internal borders with external borders – Directive 2008/115/EC – Scope – Article 2(2)(a))

In Case C‑143/22,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France), made by decision of 24 February 2022, received at the Court on 1 March 2022, in the proceedings

Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE),

Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE),

Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT),

Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (Cimade),

Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou.te.s les immigré.e.s (FASTI),

Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI),

Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH),

Le paria,

Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF),

SOS – Hépatites Fédération

v

Ministre de l’Intérieur,

intervening party :

Défenseur des droits,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L.S. Rossi, J.-C. Bonichot, S. Rodin and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,

Advocate General : A. Rantos,

Registrar : M. Krausenböck, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 January 2023,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of :

– Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE), Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE), Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT), Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (Cimade), Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou.te.s les immigré.e.s (FASTI), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI), Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH), Le paria, Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF) and SOS – Hépatites Fédération, by P. Spinosi, lawyer,

– the Défenseur des droits, by C. Hédon, Défenseure des droits, M. Cauvin and A. Guitton, acting as advisers, and by I. Zribi, lawyer,

– the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères and J. Illouz, acting as Agents,

– the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, E. Borawska-Kędzierska and A. Siwek-Ślusarek, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by A. Azéma, A. Katsimerou, T. Lilamand and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 March 2023,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1, ‘the Schengen Borders Code’), and of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE), Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE), Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT), Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (Cimade), Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou.te.s les immigré.e.s (FASTI), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI), Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH), Le Paria, Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF), SOS – Hépatites Fédération, and Ministre de l’Intérieur (Minister of the Interior, France) regarding the legality of the ordonnance no 2020-1733 du 16 décembre 2020 portant partie législative du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (Order No 2020-1733 of 16 December 2020, laying down the legislative part of the Code on Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum) (JORF of 30 December 2020, Text No 41).

Legal context

European Union law

The Schengen Borders Code

3 Pursuant to Article 2 of the Schengen Borders Code :

‘For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply :

1. “internal borders” means :

(a) the common land borders, including river and lake borders, of the Member States ;

(b) the airports of the Member States for internal flights ;

(c) sea, river and lake ports of the Member States for regular internal ferry connections ;

2. “external borders” means : the Member States’ land borders, including river and lake borders, sea borders and their airports, river ports, sea ports and lake ports, provided that they are not internal borders ;

…’

4 Title II of that code, which concerns ‘External Borders’, includes Articles 5 to 21.

5 Article 14 of the code, entitled ‘Refusal of entry’, states :

‘1. A third-country national who does not fulfil all the entry conditions laid down in Article 6(1) and does not belong to the categories of persons referred to in Article 6(5) shall be refused entry to the territories of the Member States. This shall be without prejudice to the application of special provisions concerning the right of asylum and to international protection or the issue of long-stay visas.

2. Entry may only be refused by a substantiated decision stating the precise reasons for the refusal. The decision shall be taken by an authority empowered by national law. It shall take effect immediately.

The substantiated decision stating the precise reasons for the refusal shall be given by means of a standard form, as set out in Annex V, Part B, filled in by the authority empowered by national law to refuse entry. The completed standard form shall be handed to the third-country national concerned, who shall acknowledge receipt of the decision to refuse entry by means of that form.

Data on third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused shall be registered in the EES in accordance with Article 6a(2) of this Regulation and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 (OJ 2017 L 327, p. 20)].

3. Persons refused entry shall have the right to appeal. Appeals shall be conducted in accordance with national law. A written indication of contact points able to provide information on representatives competent to act on behalf of the third-country national in accordance with national law shall also be given to the third-country national.

Lodging such an appeal shall not have suspensive effect on a decision to refuse entry.

Without prejudice to any compensation granted in accordance with national law, the third-country national concerned shall, where the appeal concludes that the decision to refuse entry was ill-founded, be entitled to the correction of the data entered in the EES or of the cancelled entry stamp, or both, and any other cancellations or additions which have been made, by the Member State which refused entry.

4. The border guards shall ensure that a third-country national refused entry does not enter the territory of the Member State concerned.

5. Member States shall collect statistics on the number of persons refused entry, the grounds for refusal, the nationality of the persons who were refused entry and the type of border (land, air or sea) at which they were refused entry and submit them yearly to the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 23)].

6. Detailed rules governing refusal of entry are given in Part A of Annex V.’

6 Title III of the Schengen Borders Code, which concerns ‘Internal Borders’, includes Articles 22 to 35.

7 Article 25 of that code, entitled ‘General framework for the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders’, provides :

‘Where, in the area without internal border control, there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a Member State, that Member State may exceptionally reintroduce border control at all or specific parts of its internal borders for a limited period of up to 30 days or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat if its duration exceeds 30 days. The scope and duration of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders shall not exceed what is strictly necessary to respond to the serious threat.’

8 Article 32 of the Schengen Borders Code, entitled ‘Provisions to be applied where border control is reintroduced at internal borders’, provides :

‘Where border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of Title II shall apply mutatis mutandis.’

9 Annex V, Part A, of the Schengen Borders Code provides :

‘1. When refusing entry, the competent border guard shall :

(a) fill in the standard form for refusing entry, as shown in Part B. The third-country national concerned shall sign the form and shall be given a copy of the signed form. Where the third-country national refuses to sign, the border guard shall indicate this refusal in the form under the section “comments” ;

(b) for third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused, register in the EES the data on refusal of entry in accordance with Article 6a(2) of this Regulation and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 ;

(c) annul or revoke the visas, as appropriate, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1)] ;

(d) for third-country nationals whose refusals of entry are not to be registered into the EES, affix an entry stamp on the passport, cancelled by a cross in indelible black ink, and write opposite it on the right-hand side, also in indelible ink, the letter(s) corresponding to the reason(s) for refusing entry, the list of which is given on the standard form for refusing entry as shown in Part B of this Annex. In addition, for these categories of persons, the border guard shall record every refusal of entry in a register or on a list stating the identity and nationality of the third-country national concerned, the references of the document authorising the third-country national to cross the border and the reason for, and date of, refusal of entry.

The practical arrangements for stamping are set out in Annex IV.

2. If a third-country national who has been refused entry is brought to the border by a carrier, the authority responsible locally shall :

(a) order the carrier to take charge of the third-country national and transport him or her without delay to the third country from which he or she was brought, to the third country which issued the document authorising him or her to cross the border, or to any other third country where he or she is guaranteed admittance, or to find means of onward transportation in accordance with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention and Council Directive 2001/51/EC [of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 45)] ;

(b) pending onward transportation, take appropriate measures, in compliance with national law and having regard to local circumstances, to prevent third-country nationals who have been refused entry from entering illegally.

…’

10 Pursuant to Article 44 of that code, entitled ‘Repeal’ :

‘Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1)] is repealed.

References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex X.’

11 In accordance with that correlation table, Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code corresponds to Article 13 of Regulation No 562/2006.

Directive 2008/115

12 Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/115 states :

‘1. This Directive applies to third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State.

2. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive to third-country nationals who :

(a) are subject to a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 13 of [Regulation No 562/2006], or who are apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State ;

(b) are subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, according to national law, or who are the subject of extradition procedures.’

13 Article 3 of that directive provides :

‘For the purpose of this Directive the following definitions shall apply :

…

2. “illegal stay” means the presence on the territory of a Member State, of a third-country national who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 5 of [Regulation No 562/2006] or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State ;

3. “return” means the process of a third-country national going back – whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced – to :

– his or her country of origin, or

– a country of transit in accordance with Community or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or

– another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he or she will be accepted ;

…’

14 Article 4(4) of the directive provides :

‘With regard to third-country nationals excluded from the scope of this Directive in accordance with Article 2(2)(a), Member States shall :

(a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 8(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 9(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 14(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 16 and 17 (detention conditions) and

(b) respect the principle of non-refoulement.’

15 Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 provides :

‘When implementing this Directive, Member States shall take due account of :

(a) the best interests of the child ;

(b) family life ;

(c) the state of health of the third-country national concerned,

and respect the principle of non-refoulement.’

16 Article 6 of that directive provides :

‘1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

2. Third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately. In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements or arrangements existing on the date of entry into force of this Directive. In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.

…’

17 The first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of that directive provides :

‘A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of between seven and thirty days, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.’

18 Article 15(1) of that directive provides :

‘Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when :

(a) there is a risk of absconding or

(b) the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process.

Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.’

French law

19 Article L. 213-3-1 of the Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum), in the version resulting from the loi no 2018-778, du 10 septembre 2018, pour une immigration maîtrisée, un droit d’asile effectif et une intégration réussie (Law No 2018-778 of 10 September 2018 for controlled immigration, an effective right of asylum and successful integration) (JORF of 11 September 2018, Text No 1) (‘the former Ceseda’), stated :

‘In the event of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders provided for in Chapter II of Title III of the [Schengen Borders Code], the decisions referred to in Article L. 213-2 may be taken in respect of foreign nationals who have arrived directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention signed on 19 June 1990, who have entered the territory of Metropolitan France crossing an internal land border without being authorised to do so and were checked in an area between the border and a line drawn 10 kilometres behind it. The procedures for these checks are defined by decree in the Conseil d’État [(Council of State, France)].’

20 Order No 2020-1733 recast the legislative part of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum. Article L. 332-2 of that code, as amended (‘the amended Ceseda’) provides :

‘The decision refusing entry, which shall be in writing and substantiated, shall be taken by an officer belonging to a category prescribed by regulations.

The notification of the decision refusing entry shall state that the foreign national has the right to inform, or cause to be informed, the person he or she has indicated that he or she intended to visit, his or her consulate or the adviser of his or her choice. It shall state that the foreign national has the right to refuse to be repatriated before one clear day has passed, under the conditions laid down in Article L. 333-2.

The decision and the notification of rights which accompanies it shall be provided to him in a language he or she understands.

Particular attention shall be paid to vulnerable persons, especially minors whether accompanied by an adult or not.’

21 Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda provides :

‘The procedure laid down in Article L. 332-2 is applicable to the decision to refuse entry taken against the foreign national pursuant to Article 6 of the [Schengen Borders Code]. It shall also apply to checks carried out at an internal border in the event of the temporary reintroduction of checks at internal borders under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of the [Schengen Borders Code].’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

22 The associations referred to in paragraph 2 of the present judgment are challenging the validity of Order No 2020-1733 before the Conseil d’État (Council of State), in an action for annulment of that order, on the grounds, inter alia, that Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda resulting from it infringes Directive 2008/115 in that it allows decisions to refuse entry at internal borders where checks have been reintroduced.

23 The referring court observes that the Court held, in its judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others (C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220), that Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 32 of the Schengen Borders Code, does not apply to the situation of an illegally staying third-country national who was apprehended in the immediate vicinity of an internal border of a Member State, even where that Member State has reintroduced border control at that border, pursuant to Article 25 of that code, on account of a serious threat to public policy or to internal security in that Member State.

24 The Conseil d’État (Council of State) points out that, in its Decision No 428175 of 27 November 2020, it held that the provisions of Article L. 213-3-1 of the former Ceseda, which provided that in the event of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders, a foreign national arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and which entered into force on 26 March 1995 (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19, ‘the Schengen Convention’), could be refused entry under the terms of Article L. 213-2 of the former Ceseda if he or entered the territory of Metropolitan France crossing an internal land border without being authorised to do so and was checked in an area between the border and a line drawn 10 kilometres inside that border, were contrary to Directive 2008/115.

25 Admittedly, according to the Conseil d’État (Council of State), Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda does not repeat the provisions of Article L. 213-3-1 of the former Ceseda. However, Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda again provides only for the adoption of a refusal of entry while carrying out border checks at internal borders in the event of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of the Schengen Borders Code.

26 That court therefore considers it necessary to determine whether, in such a case, a third-country national arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention who presents themselves at an authorised stationary or mobile border crossing point, without being in possession of documents justifying an authorisation to enter or right to stay in France, may be refused entry on the basis of Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code, without Directive 2008/115 being applicable.

27 In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling :

‘In the event of the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of [the Schengen Borders Code], can foreign nationals arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention … be refused entry, when entry checks are carried out at that border, on the basis of Article 14 of that [code], without [Directive 2008/115] being applicable ?’

Consideration of the question referred

28 By its question referred for a preliminary ruling, the national court asks, in essence, whether the Schengen Borders Code and Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has reintroduced checks at its internal borders, it may adopt, in respect of a third-country national who presents himself or herself at an authorised border crossing point where such checks are carried out, a decision refusing entry, within the meaning of Article 14 of that code, without being subject to compliance with that directive.

29 Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code allows, exceptionally and under certain conditions, a Member State to reintroduce temporarily border control at all or specific parts of its internal borders where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in that Member State. Under Article 32 of the code, where border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of the Title II of the code relating to external borders shall apply mutatis mutandis.

30 That is the case with Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that a third-country national who does not fulfil all the entry conditions laid down in Article 6(1) and does not belong to the categories of persons referred to in Article 6(5) shall be refused entry to the territories of the Member States.

31 However, it is important to remember that a third-country national who, after entering the territory of a Member State illegally is present on that territory without fulfilling the conditions for entry, stay or residence is, therefore, staying illegally, within the meaning of Directive 2008/115. Under Article 2(1) of that directive, and without prejudice to Article 2(2) of the directive, that third-country national falls within the scope of the directive, without his or her presence in the territory of the Member State concerned being subject to a condition as to minimum duration or intention to remain in that territory. He or she must therefore, in principle, be subject to the common standards and procedures laid down by the directive for the purpose of his or her removal, as long as his or her stay has not, as the case may be, been regularised (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others, C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220, paragraphs 37 and 39 and the case-law cited).

32 This also applies where the third-country national has been apprehended at a border crossing point, provided that the border crossing point is on the territory of that Member State. In that respect, it should be noted that a person may have entered the territory of a Member State even before crossing a border crossing point (see, by analogy, judgment of 5 February 2020, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Signing-on of seamen in the port of Rotterdam), C‑341/18, EU:C:2020:76, paragraph 45).

33 It should also be specified, by way of example, that when checks are carried out on board a train between the time when the train leaves the last station located on the territory of a Member State sharing an internal border with a Member State that has reintroduced checks at its internal borders, and the moment when that train enters the first station situated on the territory of the latter Member State, the check on board that same train must, unless otherwise agreed between those two Member States, be regarded as a check carried out at a border crossing point situated on the territory of the Member State which has reintroduced such checks. A third-country national who has been checked on board this train will necessarily remain on the territory of the latter Member State following the check, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115.

34 However, it should also be noted that Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/115 allows Member States to exclude, exceptionally and under certain conditions, third-country nationals who are staying illegally on their territory from the scope of that directive.

35 Thus, on the one hand, Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115 allows Member States not to apply that directive, subject to the provisions of Article 4(4) thereof, in two specific situations, namely that of third-country nationals who are the subject to a refusal of entry at an external border of a Member State, in accordance with Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code, or that of third-country nationals who are apprehended or intercepted in connection with the irregular crossing of such an external border and who have not subsequently obtained authorisation or a right to reside in that Member State.

36 However, it is clear from the Court’s case-law that those two situations relate exclusively to the crossing of an external border of a Member State, as defined in Article 2 of the Schengen Borders Code, and do not therefore concern the crossing of a border common to Member States forming part of the Schengen area, even where checks have been reintroduced at that border, pursuant to Article 25 of that code, on account of a serious threat to public policy or the internal security of that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others, C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220, paragraphs 45 and 67).

37 It follows, as the Advocate General pointed out in point 35 of his Opinion, that Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115 does not authorise a Member State which has reintroduced checks at its internal borders to derogate from the common standards and procedures laid down by that directive in order to remove a third-country national who has been intercepted, without a valid residence permit, at one of the border crossing points situated in the territory of that Member State where such checks are carried out.

38 On the other hand, although Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2008/115 authorises Member States not to apply that directive to third-country nationals who are subject to a criminal penalty providing for or resulting in their return, in accordance with national law, or who are subject to extradition proceedings, it must be noted that such a case is not the one referred to by the provision at issue in the main proceedings.

39 It follows from the foregoing, first, that a Member State which has reintroduced checks at its internal borders may apply, mutatis mutandis, Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code and paragraph 1 of Part A of Annex V to that code in respect of a third-country national who is intercepted, without a legal residence permit, at an authorised border crossing point where such checks are carried out.

40 On the other hand, where the border crossing point is located on the territory of the Member State concerned, the latter must ensure that the consequences of such application, mutatis mutandis, of the provisions referred to in the previous point do not result in disregard of the common standards and procedures laid down in Directive 2008/115. The fact that this obligation on the Member State concerned is likely to render ineffective to a large extent any decision to refuse entry to a third-country national arriving at one of its internal borders is not such as to alter that finding.

41 With regard to the relevant provisions of that directive, it should be recalled, in particular, that it follows from Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115 that any third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State must, without prejudice to the exceptions provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5 of that article and in strict compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 5 of that directive, be the subject of a return decision, which must identify, among the third countries referred to in Article 3(3) of that directive, the country to which he or she must return (judgment of 22 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Removal – Medicinal cannabis), C‑69/21, EU:C:2022:913, paragraph 53).

42 In addition, a third-country national who is the subject of such a return decision must still, in principle, be given, under Article 7 of Directive 2008/115, a certain period of time in which to leave the territory of the Member State concerned voluntarily. Forced removal is to take place only as a last resort, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, and subject to Article 9 thereof, which requires Member States to postpone removal in the cases it sets out (judgment of 17 December 2020, Commission v Hungary (Reception of applicants for international protection), C‑808/18, EU:C:2020:1029, paragraph 252).

43 Furthermore, it follows from Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 that the detention of an illegally staying third-country national may only be imposed in certain specific cases. However, as the Advocate General pointed out, in essence, in point 46 of his Opinion, that article does not preclude a national from being detained, pending his or her removal, where he or she represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or domestic security, provided that such detention complies with the conditions set out in Articles 15 to 18 of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 July 2020, Stadt Frankfurt am Main, C‑18/19, EU:C:2020:511, paragraphs 41 to 48).

44 Furthermore, Directive 2008/115 does not rule out the possibility for Member States to impose a prison sentence for offences other than those relating solely to illegal entry, including in situations where the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed. Consequently, that directive also does not preclude the arrest or placing in police custody of an illegally staying third-country national where such measures are adopted on the ground that that national is suspected of having committed an offence other than simply entering the national territory illegally, and in particular an offence likely to threaten public policy or the internal security of the Member State concerned (judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others, C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220, paragraph 66).

45 It follows that, contrary to what the French Government maintains, the application, in a case such as that referred to in the reference for a preliminary ruling, of the common standards and procedures laid down by Directive 2008/115 is not such as to make it impossible to maintain public order and safeguard internal security within the meaning of Article 72 TFEU.

46 In light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that the Schengen Borders Code and Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has reintroduced controls at its internal borders, it may adopt, in respect of a third-country national who presents himself or herself at an authorised border crossing point situated on its territory and where such controls are carried out, a decision refusing entry, by virtue of an application mutatis mutandis of Article 14 of that code, provided that the common standards and procedures laid down by that directive are applied to that national with a view to his or her removal.

Costs

47 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules :

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has reintroduced controls at its internal borders, it may adopt, in respect of a third-country national who presents himself or herself at an authorised border crossing point situated on its territory and where such controls are carried out, a decision refusing entry, by virtue of an application mutatis mutandis of Article 14 of that regulation, provided that the common standards and procedures laid down in that directive are applied to that national with a view to his or her removal.

▻https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0143

Contrôle des frontières : le gouvernement contraint de sortir de l’illégalité

Communiqué commun signé par la LDH

Après 8 ans de pratiques illégales du gouvernement français en matière de contrôle et d’enfermement des personnes en migration aux frontières intérieures, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) confirme, dans un arrêt du 21 septembre, qu’elles sont contraires au droit.

La CJUE rappelle à la France qu’elle doit se conformer au droit de l’Union européenne, et il appartient au gouvernement français de prendre des mesures immédiates sans attendre que le Conseil d’État en tire toutes les conséquences.

Associations signataires : Avocats pour la Défense des Droits des Etrangers (ADDE), Alliance-DEDF, Amnesty International France, Anafé (association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les personnes étrangères), Bizi migrant.es, Emmaüs Roya, Federation Etorkinekin Diakité, Gisti, La Cimade, LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme), Médecins du Monde, Roya citoyenne, Syndicat des avocats de France (Saf), Syndicat de la magistrature (SM), Tous Migrants, Tous Migrants 73, Utopia 56 (antenne Toulouse)

Paris, le 21 septembre 2023

▻https://www.ldh-france.org/controle-des-frontieres-le-gouvernement-contraint-de-sortir-de-lillegali

Corte di giustizia UE: vietato il respingimento sistematico alle frontiere interne

La sentenza della Corte nella causa #C-143/22 promossa da diverse associazioni francesi

https://www.meltingpot.org/app/uploads/2020/10/900x450_mp_03.jpg

Il 21 settembre 2023 una sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea (CGUE) ha dichiarato che, anche se un Paese UE ha introdotto controlli alle sue frontiere, non ha il diritto di effettuare respingimenti sistematici. Deve rispettare la direttiva europea «rimpatri» che prevede che a un cittadino extraeuropeo possa “essere concesso un certo periodo di tempo per lasciare volontariamente il territorio“.

Tutto era partito dal ricorso di varie associazioni francesi 1 che hanno contestato dinanzi al Consiglio di Stato francese la legittimità di un’ordinanza che ha modificato il codice sull’ingresso e sul soggiorno degli stranieri e sul diritto d’asilo (Ceseda).

Esse hanno sostenuto che, consentendo alle autorità francesi di rifiutare l’ingresso di cittadini di paesi terzi alle frontiere con altri Stati membri (ossia le «frontiere interne»), alle quali sia stato temporaneamente ripristinato un controllo di frontiera in forza del codice frontiere Schengen in ragione di una minaccia grave per l’ordine pubblico o la sicurezza interna della Francia, il Ceseda contravverrebbe alla direttiva «rimpatri». Secondo tale direttiva, qualsiasi cittadino di un paese terzo il cui soggiorno è irregolare deve, di norma, essere oggetto di una decisione di rimpatrio. Tuttavia, l’interessato deve, in linea di principio, beneficiare di un certo termine per lasciare volontariamente il territorio. L’allontanamento forzato avviene solo in ultima istanza.

Il Consiglio di Stato ha quindi interrogato la CGUE sulla questione dichiarando che «in una situazione del genere, un provvedimento di respingimento può essere adottato sulla base del codice frontiere #Schengen ma che, ai fini dell’allontanamento dell’interessato, devono comunque essere rispettate le norme e le procedure comuni previste dalla direttiva “rimpatri” (▻https://openmigration.org/glossary-term/direttiva-rimpatri), il che può condurre a privare di una larga parte della sua utilità l’adozione di un siffatto provvedimento di respingimento».

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/UwtdGtLShNvI/IZ9C1sEHlr7m0yBLujHX3yoE5FagF1HXZJnsZqyP.png

«La sentenza della CGUE impone la giurisprudenza a tutti gli Stati membri dell’Unione europea, ma in particolare è rivolta alla Francia, che dal 2015 ha reintrodotto i controlli alle frontiere interne.»

Negli ultimi otto anni, tutti i treni che passano per #Menton sono stati controllati, gli agenti di polizia hanno controllato i passaggi di frontiera e pattugliato i valichi alpini. Dal 1° giugno è ulteriormente stata dispiegata un militarizzazione delle frontiere con personale aggiuntivo, il supporto dell’esercito, droni con termocamere.

La Francia è stata accusata di respingere le persone migranti che cercano di entrare nel Paese, anche quelli che chiedono asilo e perfino i minorenni. Diversi rapporti di organizzazioni e collettivi hanno messo in luce queste pratiche violente e illegali, soprattutto nella zona di Ventimiglia. Secondo le testimonianze raccolte, si tratta di respingimenti “sistematici”.

«In poche parole, questa decisione dice che la Francia sta perseguendo una politica illegale di chiusura delle frontiere», riassume Flor Tercero, dell’Association pour le Droit des Etrangers (ADDE) intervistato da Infomigrants. Questa decisione «è chiaramente una vittoria» e «significa che il governo non può ignorare il diritto dell’Unione europea».

▻https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/09/corte-di-giustizia-ue-vietato-il-respingimento-sistematico-alle-frontier

#frontières_intérieures #directive_retour #illégalité

European Court of Justice rules systematic pushbacks are illegal

European countries do not have the right to refuse entry to irregular migrants even if they have border controls in place, the ECJ has ruled. Activists say the decision means that France has been violating EU law by pushing back migrants coming from Italy.

When a member state decides to reintroduce checks at its internal borders, can it systematically refuse entry to all irregular foreign nationals? No, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled earlier this month. It must comply with the “Return Directive,” a law which says that a non-European national can “be granted a certain period of time to voluntarily leave the territory.”

“A decision to refuse entry may be decided but, when seeking the removal of the person concerned, the common standards and procedures provided for by the Return Directive must still be respected,” the Luxembourg court stated.

It also said that “excluding from the scope of this directive foreign nationals who are staying irregularly in the territory” can only be done “exceptionally.”

The ruling on September 21 is at odds with the policy pursued by France, which re-established controls at its internal EU borders in 2015. For the past eight years, all trains passing through the French coastal city of Menton have been checked, and police have monitored border posts and patrolled the Alps.

Activist groups say France has been taking advantage of the temporary border controls in order to turn back migrants who try to enter the territory — even those who come to ask for asylum. In an August report, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) teams in Ventimiglia documented practices of pushbacks at the border between Italy and France. “Systematic” pushbacks target unaccompanied minors, even sometimes separating families, according to the report.
’An illegal policy’

“In a nutshell, this decision means that France is pursuing an illegal policy of closing borders,” Flor Tercero, of the Association for Foreigners’ Rights (ADDE), told InfoMigrants. ADDE is one of the associations involved in bringing the lawsuit to court.

“Pushing back means, in a way, refusing these people the possibility of coming to France to apply for asylum or to cross France to go elsewhere in the EU. France for eight years has decided to carry out border checks. And as it re-established checks, it considered itself entitled to be able to push back migrants coming from Italy, in particular,” he added.

“After eight years of illegal practices by the French government controlling and detaining migrants at internal borders, the CJEU confirms (...) that [these practices] are contrary to the law,” a joint press release of twenty organizations added.

▻https://twitter.com/anafeasso/status/1704893792266969108

For Flor Tercero, this decision is a clear victory. “This means that the government cannot forego European law,” he said.
France ’will not welcome migrants’ from Lampedusa

The court decision came at a time when attention was focused on the French-Italian border. Following the recent arrival of a very large number of people on the Italian island of Lampedusa, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, announced that 200 additional police officers would be sent to the border between the two countries, in the expectation that the migrants would eventually make their way from Italy to France.

France “will not welcome migrants” from the Italian island, the minister stated.

Meanwhile the departmental director of the border police, Emmanuelle Joubert, announced that more than 3,000 migrants had been arrested in Menton within a fortnight. This brings to 32,000 the number of arrests since the start of the year along the Franco-Italian border. Of those, 24,000 were rejected and handed over to the Italian authorities

Joubert said she had been informed about the judgment by the CJEU. “The State is carrying out an analysis, we will have instructions later,” she said, adding that migrants who had recently arrived in Lampedusa should not arrive at the French border for “several weeks.”

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/52117/european-court-of-justice-rules-systematic-pushbacks-are-illegal

intéressé, j’ai découvert la phrase dans son entier

De plus nous envisageons dans ce projet la mise en place d’un vortex d’eau calculé avec des proportions de géométrie sacré qui va permettre une régénération et une dynamisation de l’eau.

enfin une science divine

Un livre démonte la mécanique du contrôle contre les chômeurs
▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie-et-social/150923/un-livre-demonte-la-mecanique-du-controle-contre-les-chomeurs

Rédigé par cinq chercheurs, « Chômeurs, vos papiers ! » décrypte l’histoire et le fonctionnement du #contrôle de la recherche d’emploi, témoignages de l’intérieur à l’appui. Objectif du livre : « armer les lectrices et lecteurs contre les fausses évidences de la croisade gouvernementale pour le plein emploi ».

▻https://www.raisonsdagir-editions.org/catalogue/chomeurs-vos-papiers

Plus les #chômeurs et #chômeuses sont nombreux·ses, plus ils et elles sont suspecté·es d’être la cause du #chômage. Tel pourrait être le paradoxe des politiques de l’emploi, en France comme ailleurs. Que celles-ci prennent les traits américains du workfare ou ceux plus européens de l’activation, l’objectif est le même : pousser les chômeurs·ses à travailler et, pour cela, conditionner les allocations à un contrôle de plus en plus strict de leur recherche d’emploi.

En replaçant les évolutions du contrôle dans l’histoire longue du chômage, ce livre montre comment son intensification dans la période récente a été pensée, mise en œuvre et justifiée au nom de la « redynamisation » des chômeurs·ses, au point d’être désormais présenté comme une nouvelle forme d’accompagnement. Cette euphémisation tranche avec la virulence des discours politiques sur le sujet, tout autant qu’elle masque les effets délétères de ce traitement coercitif. Car si le contrôle vise à adapter les comportements des chômeur·es à des exigences institutionnelles, il s’agit aussi de satisfaire celles des entreprises. Mettre la pression sur les chômeurs·ses, c’est ainsi perpétuer l’ascendant des employeur·ses dans le rapport de force qui les oppose aux salarié·es en matière de revenu et de conditions de #travail. Aujourd’hui comme hier, la cause des chômeurs·ses est bien celle des travailleurs·ses.

Dis donc camarade Soleil
tu ne trouves pas
que c’est plutôt con
de donner une journée pareille
à un patron ?

Jacques Prévert

https://www.raisonsdagir-editions.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Couv_Chomeurs-340x504.jpeg

A propos de l’auteur

Claire Vivès est ingénieure de recherche au Conservatoire national des arts et métiers (Cnam), LISE et CEET. Elle a notamment signé « L’objectivité sous contrôle : analyse d’une évaluation randomisée de programmes d’accompagnement de demandeurs d’emploi », Revue française de sociologie, 2019, 60-1, p. 73-94.

Luc Sigalo Santos est maître de conférences en science politique à Aix-Marseille, LEST. Il a écrit L’administration des vocations. Enquête sur le traitement public du chômage artistique en France (Dalloz, 2018).

Jean-Marie Pillon est maître de conférences en sociologie à Paris-Dauphine, IRISSO. Il a écrit Pôle emploi : Gérer le chômage de masse (PUR, 2017).

Vincent Dubois est professeur de sociologie et de science politique à Sciences Po Strasbourg, SAGE. Il a déjà publié deux livres chez Raisons d’agir : Contrôler les assistés : genèses et usages d’un mot d’ordre, (2021) et La culture comme vocation (2013).

Hadrien Clouet est docteur en sociologie et député de Haute-Garonne. Il a écrit Rationner l’emploi  : la promotion du temps partiel par les services publics d’emploi allemand et français, (Éditions de la MSH, 2022).