#frontiéres

Turning the Exception into the Rule

Assessing Italy’s New Border Procedure

Having promised its electorate a strong stance towards immigration, in January 2023 Italy’s new government adopted a reform that heavily curtailed immigrant rights to speed up return procedures. However, between September and October, several judgments issued by the Catania Tribunal declared it in violation of EU law (►https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/NON-CONVALIDA1.pdf). In particular, when requested to review the detention of asylum applicants, the judges found the new Italian asylum border procedure contrary to the Procedures Directive 2013/32 (►https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0032) and the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (▻https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0033).

The judgments led to a backlash, with PM Meloni and other members of the government accusing them of being politically motivated. One minister even published a video on social media showing a judge of the Catania Tribunal taking part in a pro-migrant rights demonstration in 2018, thus accusing her of partiality.

Such political attacks (▻https://www.associazionemagistrati.it/doc/4037/lanm-sul-caso-catania.htm) must always be condemned, for they pose a significant threat to judicial independence and thus Italian democracy. Yet, they are particularly unwarranted given that the Catania Tribunal’s judges were correct in finding the new Italian border procedures incompatible with EU law.

Detention as the Rule for Asylum Seekers

The 2023 reform (▻https://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2023-03-10&atto.codice) of Italy’s asylum system included the introduction of an accelerated border procedure which allows for the detention (▻https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/la-bestia-tentacolare) of asylum seekers „exclusively to determine the applicant’s right to enter the territory“ (Art. 6 bis, Law Decree 142/2015).

This new procedure is applied when an asylum application is made „at the border or in a transit zone“ by a person who either a) evaded or attempted to evade border controls, or b) hails from a safe country of origin, which were determined by a Ministerial Decree in 2019 (▻https://www.esteri.it/mae/resource/doc/2019/10/decreto_paesi_sicuri.pdf), later updated in 2023 (►https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2023/03/25/23A01952/sg).

Another Ministerial Decree (►https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2019/09/07/19A05525/sg) identified the „border and transit zones“ where the border procedure can be used, without providing a clear definition of these concepts nor explaining the distinction between them. Instead, it lists 16 provinces where the procedure applies (Trieste, Gorizia, Cosenza, Matera, Taranto, Lecce, Brindisi, Caltanissetta, Ragusa, Syracuse, Catania, Messina, Trapani, Agrigento, Cagliari, and South Sardinia).

Finally, the law specifies that asylum seekers are to be detained unless they submit a passport (or equivalent document) or provide a financial guarantee of € 4,938.00 (▻https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2023/09/21/23A05308/sg). This amount was allegedly calculated with reference to the cost of suitable accommodation, repatriation, and minimum means of subsistence. The sum can be provided through a bank guarantee or an insurance policy, but solely by the asylum seekers themselves, not by third parties.

[voir aussi: ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1018093]

Following a recent increase in migrant flows from Tunisia, the Italian authorities extensively relied on the new border procedure to detain several Tunisian citizens on the ground that they come from a “safe country of origin” (▻https://www.questionegiustizia.it/rivista/articolo/la-protezione-dei-cittadini-stranieri-provenienti-da-cd-paesi-sic). However, on September 29 (►https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/NON-CONVALIDA1.pdf) and October 8 (▻https://www.questionegiustizia.it/data/doc/3650/2023-tribunale-catania-8-10-2023-non-convalida-oscurato.pdf), the Catania Tribunal issued a series of similar rulings in which it annulled the detention orders because they were in conflict with EU law. In the following sections, we analyze and expand the three main arguments advanced by the Tribunal, showing that they were largely correct in their findings that the new Italian border procedure exceeds what is permissible under EU law.

The ‘Border’ under EU Law

The first argument made by the Catania Tribunal regards the correct initiation of a border procedure. According to the judge, the procedure was not applied „at the border“, as understood by EU law (Art. 43 Directive 2013/32). Indeed, the applicants arrived and made their asylum application in Lampedusa (province of Agrigento) but the detention was ordered several days later in Pozzallo (Ragusa province) when the applicants were no longer „at the border.“ Because the border procedure (involving detention) was utilized at a later stage and in a different place, it was not appropriately initiated.

In support of the Catania Tribunal’s conclusion, we should recall that Article 43 the Procedures Directive requires a spatial and temporal link between the border crossing and the activation of the border procedure (►https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0032). Although the Directive does not define the terms „border“ or „transit zone“, it clearly distinguishes these areas from other „locations in the proximity of the border or transit zone“ (Article 43(3)), where applicants can be exceptionally accommodated but never detained. The distinction between the border and other places in its vicinity suggests that the procedure provided for in Art. 43 can only be applied in narrow and well-defined areas or in pre-identified transit zones (such as the Hungarian transit zones examined by the Court in FMS and Commission v Hungary).

Other EU law instruments support this narrow interpretation of the “border” concept. Regulation 1931/2006 defines a „border area“ as a delimited space within 30 km from the Member State’s border. In the Affum case, the Court also called for a narrow interpretation of the spatial concept of „border.“ There, the Court clarified that the Return Directive allows Member States to apply a simplified return procedure at their external borders in order to „ensure that third-country nationals do not enter [their] territory“ (a purpose which resonates with that of Art. 8(3)(c) Reception Directive). However, such a procedure can only be applied if there is a „direct temporal and spatial link with the crossing of the border“, i.e. „at the time of the irregular crossing of the border or near that border after it has been crossed“ (par. 72).

By contrast, under the Italian accelerated procedure, the border has blurred contours. The new procedure, relying on the “#fiction_of_non-entry” (►https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/654201/EPRS_STU(2020)654201_EN.pdf), can be carried out not only „at“ the border and in transit zones or in areas territorially „close“ to the border, but in entire provinces in southern and northern Italy. This far exceeds the narrow definition of border or border area derived from EU law.

The Regulation of Detention under EU Law

The second argument of the Catania Tribunal turned on the lack of motivation for the detention orders. The applicants were detained solely because they were from Tunisia, did not submit a valid passport nor pay the bail. As such, the orders lacked any case-by-case assessment of the applicant’s individual circumstances, and they did not apply the proportionality and necessity principles, as prescribed by EU law under art. 8(2) Directive 2013/33 and art. 52 and 6 of the Charter.

Indeed, even if a border procedure is correctly initiated, Italy’s new provisions on the detention of asylum seekers do not meet the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Reception Directive. According to the CJEU, this authorizes asylum seekers‘ detention “only where, following an assessment carried out on a case-by-case basis, that is necessary” and where other less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively. (ex multis, FMS, par. 258; VL, par. 102; M.A., par. 82).

Italy’s norms contain no reference to the principles of necessity and proportionality nor to the need for a case-by-case assessment (Art. 6 bis D. Lgs. 142/2015). In so far as the Italian provisions allow for an automatic application of detention whenever the border procedure is activated, they are incompatible with Art. 8(2) of the Reception Directive. In light of the primacy and direct effect of EU law, Italian public authorities are required to give direct application to the principles of proportionality and necessity and to carry out an individual assessment, even if not directly foreseen by Italian law.
The Possibility of Bail

Finally, the Catania Tribunal argued that the financial guarantee to avoid detention is contrary to EU law. The Tribunal observed that the guarantee is not used as an alternative measure to detention, but rather as an ‚administrative requirement‘ that, if not complied with, leads to detention. According to the judge, this renders it incompatible with Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Directive 2013/33 which “preclude[s] an applicant for international protection being placed in detention on the sole ground that he or she is unable to provide for his or her needs.”(at 256).

As rightly noted by Savino, EU law does not prohibit the use of financial guarantees; to the contrary, Article 8(4) mentions it as a legitimate alternative to detention. However, both scholars and the European Asylum Agency maintain that the guarantee shall be proportionate to the means of the applicant in order to avoid discriminatory effects. The EUAA Guidelines on asylum seeker detention further specify that:

“the amount should be tailored to individual circumstances, and therefore be reasonable given the particular situation of asylum seekers, and not so high as to lead to discrimination against persons with limited funds. Any failure to be able to do so resulting in detention (or its continuation), would suggest that the system is arbitrary.”

It is doubtful whether the financial guarantee in its current legal design can be considered an “effective” alternative to detention (Art.8(4)). Its high amount (€4,938.00) and procedural requirements make it practically impossible for asylum applicants to rely upon it. In particular, they are required to deposit the sum upon arrival, through a bank guarantee or an insurance policy, which are concretely impossible for them to obtain. Moreover, the financial guarantee is the only alternative to detention provided by the new Italian law, while migrants detained under other circumstances can rely upon more alternative measures.

Taken together, it means that the measure is designed in a discriminatory way and is neither effective nor proportionate.

Concluding Thoughts

Several aspects of the new law foresee a system in which the border procedure is systematically applied, rendering detention the rule, instead of the exception. This follows from the geographic expansion of the “borders areas and transit zones”, the automatic (indiscriminate) application of the safe country of origin concept, the lack of a proportionality assessment, and the practical impossibility of applying the only alternative measure foreseen.

More and more Italian courts are annulling detention orders, on the grounds that the Italian border procedure is in conflict with EU law. While the Italian government considers this an unacceptable form of judicial activism, this blog has shown that the judges’ concerns are well-founded.

Member States’ courts are “EU law judges”, they must give precedence to EU law and general principles and set aside any incompatible national law. The recent personal attacks against some of the judges show that the government struggles to come to terms with this thick form of judicial review which takes seriously European and human rights standards.

▻https://verfassungsblog.de/turning-the-exception-into-the-rule
#exception #justice #détention #rétention #détention_administrative #décret #procédure_accélérée #garantie_financière #5000_EUR #chantage #caution #decreto_Cutro #décret_Cutro #5000_euros #tribunal_de_Catane #procédure_frontière #directive_procédures #zone_de_transit #proximité #distance #zone_frontalière #directive_retour #frontière_extérieure #fiction_de_non-entrée

–-

La partie sur les frontières ajouté à cette métaliste autour de la Création de zones frontalières (au lieu de lignes de frontière) en vue de refoulements :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/795053

Utopljenik iz Kupe kod Ladešića je migrant

U pokušaju prelaska rijeke Kupe izgubio je život

Muškarac čiji je leš jučer pronađen u rijeci Kupi u mjestu Ladešići je migrant, doznaje Radio Mrežnica.

Leš je pronađen u popodnevnim satima uz obalu rijeke Kupe s hrvatske strane. Riječ je o dijelu uz samu hrvatsko-slovensku granicu, a nesretnik je očito pokušao doći do Slovenije odnosno prijeći rijeku Kupu. Na to upućuju i nestali čamci s hrvatske strane obale, pa se pretpostavlja da stradali nije bio sam. Policija istražuje slučaj.

▻https://radio-mreznica.hr/utopljenik-iz-kupe-kod-ladesica-migrant

Nakon tragedije u Slunju, sinoć pronađen još jedan leš kako pluta rijekom - tijelo nepoznate osobe izvučeno iz Kupe kod Žakanja

Nakon što je policija izvijestila da je jučer poslijepodne u rijeci Korani na području Pavlovca kod Slunja pronađen leš nepoznatog muškarca, stigla je vijest o tragediji i iz sjevernog dijela Karlovačke županije, na području Žakanja.

Tamo je, navode iz PU karlovačke, u večernjim satima iz rijeke Kupe izvučen leš također nepoznate osobe. Odmah se posumnjalo da se radi o još jednom nesretno stradalom migrantu kojih je s proljećem sve više na “proputovanju” kroz Hrvatsku, a koji pokušavaju prijeći u Sloveniju preko rijeke Kupe.

▻https://kaportal.net.hr/aktualno/3693531/sinoc-pronaden-jos-jedan-les-rijeci-tijelo-nepoznate-osobe-izvuceno-iz-

DVA UTAPANJA KOD KARLOVCA U ISTOM DANU: Nakon tragedije na Korani, iz Kupe izvukli leš nepoznatog muškarca

Nakon što je policija izvijestila da je jučer poslijepodne u rijeci Korani na području Pavlovca kod Slunja pronađen leš nepoznatog muškarca, stigla je vijest o tragediji i iz sjevernog dijela Karlovačke županije, na području Žakanja.

(#paywall)

▻https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/crna-kronika/dva-utapanja-kod-karlovca-u-istom-danu-nakon-tragedije-na-korani-iz-kupe-iz

‘U bijegu su skakali u rijeku. Nitko nije izronio’: Potresna ispovijest migranta o tragediji kod D. Rese

Salman, 23-godišnjak iz Pakistana, prijatelj je jednog od utopljenika, Mohsina Alija, dao je iskaz aktivisticama Inicijative Dobrodošli, a potvrdio je i u razgovoru za naš list ono što je ispričao o tragediji koja se dogodila 2. lipnja kada je skupina migranata pokušala domoći se Slovenije preko rijeke

U subotu, 2. lipnja, u rijeci na granici sa Slovenijom utopilo se šest migranata, među njima i 22-godišnji Mohsin Ali iz Pakistana, posvjedočili su migranti koji su preživjeli tragediju.

Naš list telefonom je razgovarao sa Salmanom, 23-godišnjakom iz Pakistana i prijateljem utopljenika Mohsina Alija, koji je trenutno izbjeglica u Velikoj Kladuši. Salman se 2. lipnja, zajedno sa skupinom prijatelja i drugova migranata iz Velike Kladuše, pokušao domoći Slovenije. Nije im uspjelo. Dogodila se tragedija, a preživjele je policija vratila u Veliku Kladušu, među njima i Salmana. Razgovarajući za naš list u subotu iz Velike Kladuše, Salman nam je potvrdio iskaz koji je 5. srpnja dao aktivisticama Inicijative Dobrodošli, koja u Hrvatskoj pomaže izbjeglicama.

Salmanov iskaz

Ovo je Salmanov iskaz tim aktivisticama, koje čuvaju audio snimku njegovog svjedočanstva: »2. lipnja, skupina ljudi pokušala je prijeći granicu iz Hrvatske u Sloveniju. Policija nas je vidjela i pucala. Pokušavajući pobjeći, ljudi su počeli skakati u rijeku. Mnogi nisu znali plivati, i nisu mogli procijeniti dubinu rijeke. Nitko nije izronio. Jedan čovjek počeo je plakati i moliti policajce da im pomognu, jer se ljudi utapaju. Ali policija nije reagirala. Tog dana, Mohsin Ali i još pet-šest ljudi izgubili su živote u toj rijeci. Slovenska policija kasnije nam je pokazala fotografije mrtvih tijela. Prepoznao sam Mohsina Alija. Rekli su nam da je njegovo tijelo u Zagrebu. Dan kasnije, poslan sam natrag u Bosnu. U kontaktu smo s majkom Mohsina Alija. Ona želi da se njegovo tijelo vrati u Pakistan«.

Salman je u subotnjem razgovoru za naš list potvrdio da je taj razgovor autentičan, a podaci istiniti. Dodao je kako nerado razgovara za novine, »jer mu to nikad ne koristi«. Odbio je kazati i svoje prezime, a nije kazao ni ime majke Mohsina Alija, kao ni grad u kojem je Mohsin živio u Pakistanu. Salman, međutim, jest potvrdio da majka zna za pogibiju sina, te da tijelo želi vratiti kući, kako bi ga dostojno ispratila.

Naš list u subotu je razgovarao i s jednom od četiri aktivistice Inicijative Dobrodošli, koje su u Velikoj Kladuši snimile Salmanov iskaz. Ta žena, čije ime i kontakte posjeduje naša redakcija, kazala nam je kako je u grupi iz koje su se migranti utopili, uz Salmana, bio i bratić utopljenika Mohsina Alija. On je preživio. Prema nekim informacijama, ostalih petoro utopljenika bili su iz Sirije i Maroka, ali o tim ljudima nema dodatnih informacija. Svi su se utopili na istome mjestu, kod Duge Rese, i u istome događaju, koji je Salman opisao aktivisticama, ali ime rijeke ti ljudi nisu znali.

Prema informacijama iz krugova aktivista koji nastoje pratiti teškoće izbjeglica što Bosne i Hercegovine pokušavaju, preko Hrvatske, prijeći dalje u zapadnu Europu, opasnost od utapanja izbjeglica postala je tako akutna, da neplivači koji iz Bihaća i Velike Kladuše kreću na neizvjestan put, sa sobom sve češće nose konopce, kako bi se vezali kada prelaze rijeke, da se ne utope.

Potvrda vijesti

Kao dodatna potvrda vijesti da su se 2. lipnja migranti uistinu utopili može poslužiti i vijest Hine, koja je dan kasnije, u nedjelju, 3. lipnja, prenijela priopćenje karlovačke policije kako je »u Gornjem Prilišću, na granici sa Slovenijom, u nedjelju iz Kupe izvučeno truplo nepoznatog muškarca, mlađeg migranta«. Hina je u tom izvještaju citirala Vladu Furača iz karlovačke podružnice Hrvatske gorske službe spašavanja (HGSS), koji je potvrdio da su njihovi ronioci po nalogu policije izvukli tijelo iz Kupe. Furač je dodao kako »javnost zna da je ovo mjesto na Kupi na migrantskoj ruti, da je tu prijašnjih mjeseci već bilo utapanja stranaca, te bi moglo biti da je to opet jedan takav slučaj«. Policija je u istome izvještaju potvrdila da je »muškarac pronađen na hrvatskoj strani linije razgraničenja sa Slovenijom«.

Odgovarajući na upit našeg lista, Odjela za odnose s javnošću MUP-a 2. srpnja izvijestio je kako je od početka 2017. do lipnja ove godine, u pokušajima da prijeđu granicu, u Hrvatskoj poginulo ukupno 12 migranata. Nevladine organizacije, pak, barataju podatkom o šesnaest poginulih u istome razdoblju, te izražavaju bojazan da je poginulih i više. Kako bilo, može se zaključiti da se broj poginulih izbjeglica u Hrvatskoj u posljednjih godinu i pol popeo na najmanje osamnaest – uz nadu da nije i mnogo veći.

▻https://www.novilist.hr/novosti/hrvatska/u-bijegu-su-skakali-u-rijeku-nitko-nije-izronio-potresna-ispovijest-migrant

mention du film dans cet article paru dans Altreconomia (interview avec #Rut_Kurkiewicz, co-réalisatrice du film):
La Polonia che imprigiona i migranti nei campi, ostaggio dei “geni della manipolazione”
►https://altreconomia.it/la-polonia-che-imprigiona-i-migranti-nei-campi-ostaggio-dei-geni-della-

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2023)260

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Ilias and Ahmed group against Hungary

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Recalling that this group of cases concerns a violation of the procedural obligation under Article 3 to assess the risks of ill-treatment before removing the asylum-seeking applicants to Serbia by relying on a general presumption of “safe third country” (Ilias and Ahmed; W.A. and others); it further concerns violations of the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention following the application of the “apprehension and escort” measure introduced by the State Borders Act, authorising the police to remove the asylum-seeking applicants staying illegally in Hungarian territory to the external side of the border fence (on the border with Serbia) without a decision, as well as the lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 in respect of the applicants’ removal (Shahzad and H.K.);

Taking note of the authorities’ information that the legislative presumption of “safe third country” in respect of Serbia has not been applied by the asylum authority or the domestic courts since
26 May 2020;

Considering nevertheless that sufficient guarantees against the reoccurrence of a violation similar to the one identified by the European Court in Ilias and Ahmed and W.A. and Others are necessary;

Reiterating its grave concern that despite the authorities’ repeated indications that the reform of the asylum system is underway, no information on concrete measures has been communicated in this respect;

Reiterating further its grave concern that, despite the concerns expressed in its previous decisions and notwithstanding the adoption of the Shahzad and H.K. judgments by the European Court, collective expulsions reportedly not only continue but that their numbers are increasing at a concerning rate;

Emphasising the legal obligation of every State, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the final judgments of the European Court in any case to which they are a party, fully, effectively and promptly;

INVITED the authorities to submit an undertaking that, in the absence of a thorough and up-to-date reassessment of the asylum situation in Serbia, they will refrain from again applying the legislative presumption of “safe third country” to that country;

STRONGLY URGED the authorities to intensify their efforts in reforming the asylum system in order to afford effective access to means of legal entry, in particular border procedures in line with Hungary’s international obligations, and invited them to establish a timeline for the legislative process, to present a draft legislative proposal and to keep the Committee informed of all relevant developments in the legislative process;

EXHORTED the authorities to terminate, without further delay, the practice of removing asylum-seekers to Serbia pursuant to section 5 of the State Borders Act without their identification or examination of their individual situation;

REITERATED its call on the authorities to introduce an effective remedy providing a person alleging that their expulsion procedure is “collective” in nature with an effective possibility of challenging the expulsion decision by having a sufficiently thorough examination of their complaints carried out by an independent and impartial domestic forum, in line with the Court’s case-law;

INVITED the authorities to submit an updated action plan, including information on all the above issues, by 30 June 2024, and decided to resume consideration of this group, in the light of the information received, at their DH meeting in September 2024;

ENVISAGED taking new action to ensure that Hungary abides by its obligations deriving from the Court’s judgments in this group of cases, should no tangible progress be achieved by that meeting as regards the issues mentioned above.

▻https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680aca0b9

AYS DAILY DIGEST 25/05/2018: Another absurd deal to stop people from coming to the EU

Slovenia

Slovenian police issued a statement saying that number of people who are arriving to this country incresed this year. According to the official data, until the end of April this year, Slovenian Police apprehended 1,226 persons for irregular border-crossing. It signifies increase of 280 percent in comaprison to the same period last year.

Slovenian authorities said they stopped 82 people entering the country last week, with one person drowning in the Kupa River along the border with Croatia.

A rise in asylum applications has also been reported, with 798 registered in the four months of 2018, compared to 1,476 in the entire year 2017.

As reported, the Government Office for the Support and Integration of Migrants, is working on a new contingency plan for responding to the higher number of arrivals, while the Migration Office is in the process of enlisting more staff for the purpose of processing applications.

▻https://medium.com/are-you-syrious/ays-daily-digest-25-05-2018-another-absurd-deal-to-stop-people-from-coming-t

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

I richiedenti asilo paghino 5mila euro per evitare il Centro per il rimpatrio

Decreto legge pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale, garanzia finanziaria per chi arriva

Una garanzia finanziaria di quasi 5mila euro dovrà essere versata dal richiedente asilo che non vuole essere trattenuto in un Centro fino all’esito dell’esame del suo ricorso contro il rigetto della domanda.

La prevede un decreto del ministero dell’Interno pubblicato oggi in Gazzetta Ufficiale che fissa a 4.938 euro l’importo che deve garantire al migrante, per il periodo massimo di trattenimento (4 settimane), «la disponibilità di un alloggio adeguato sul territorio nazionale; della somma occorrente al rimpatrio e di mezzi di sussistenza minimi».

La disposizione si applica a chi è nelle condizioni di essere trattenuto durante lo svolgimento della procedura alla frontiera e proviene da un Paese sicuro. Allo straniero, si legge, «è dato immediato avviso della facoltà, alternativa al trattenimento, di prestazione della garanzia finanziaria».

La normativa, già in vigore, prevede il trattenimento durante lo svolgimento della procedura in frontiera, «al solo scopo di accertare il diritto ad entrare nel territorio dello Stato», per i richiedenti asilo in una serie di casi. Il decreto - firmato, oltre che dal ministro Matteo Piantedosi, anche dai titolari di Giustizia (Carlo Nordio) ed Economia (Giancarlo Giorgetti) - richiama inoltre la direttiva del ministro dell’Interno dell’1 marzo 2000, in cui si dispone che «lo straniero, ai fini dell’ingresso sul territorio nazionale, indichi l’esistenza di idoneo alloggio nel territorio nazionale, la disponibilità della somma occorrente per il rimpatrio, nonchè comprovi la disponibilità dei mezzi di sussistenza minimi necessari, a persona».

La misura della garanzia finanziaria si applica al richiedente asilo direttamente, alla frontiera o nelle zone di transito, che è stato fermato per avere eluso o tentato di eludere i controlli e a chi proviene da un Paese sicuro «fino alla decisione dell’istanza di sospensione».

La garanzia deve essere versata «in unica soluzione mediante fideiussione bancaria o polizza fideiussoria assicurativa ed è individuale e non può essere versata da terzi». Dovrà inoltre essere prestata «entro il termine in cui sono effettuate le operazioni di rilevamento fotodattiloscopico e segnaletico». Nel caso in cui lo straniero «si allontani indebitamente - prosegue il testo - il prefetto del luogo ove è stata prestata la garanzia finanziaria procede all’escussione della stessa»

▻https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/politica/2023/09/22/un-richiedente-asilo-paghi-5mila-euro-per-evitare-il-centro-per-il-rimpatrio_25
#garantie_financière #garantie #pays_sûr

La Une de Il Manifesto:
Il prezzo della libertà

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/rchqhwj2k645/Zyk1eyBAVKlsreA43rmldUwMLxnrIchxD1pUPvby.jpg

#Pizzo_di_Stato

«5000 euro e non finisci nel CPR»
"Ah... il #pizzo di Stato"

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/ea59ea880-d2aad0/ISaicmhxWoV0/t80E0jAzvysR83WPCTSkqReuZcrtEKxs8BZJNyjw.jpg

Cinquemila euro, il prezzo della libertà per i migranti

Aprirà a #Pozzallo, in provincia di Ragusa, la prima struttura di detenzione dei richiedenti asilo. Come funzioneranno questi nuovi centri e la cauzione di cinquemila euro per uscirne

“Nei mesi scorsi abbiamo chiesto di aumentare i posti per la prima accoglienza, così hanno costruito un nuovo hotspot a Pozzallo che può ospitare trecento migranti. Solo ora abbiamo capito che una parte di questo centro diventerà una struttura di reclusione per il rimpatrio accelerato di persone che arrivano da paesi considerati sicuri, in base a quanto previsto dal decreto Cutro”, spiega Roberto Ammatuna, sindaco di Pozzallo.

Nella cittadina in provincia di Ragusa sarà aperto il primo centro di trattenimento per richiedenti asilo in Italia: ottantaquattro posti riservati a chi proviene da paesi definiti sicuri come la Tunisia. Realizzata in quaranta giorni, la struttura è formata da diversi container e si trova in un’area recintata con inferriate e filo spinato. Avrebbe dovuto aprire il 24 settembre, invece probabilmente sarà pronta il 27 settembre. “Al momento ci sono un centinaio di persone nell’hotspot, ma ancora nessuno nel centro di trattenimento per l’espulsione”, chiarisce Ammatuna.

“All’inizio ho avuto dei dubbi su questo tipo di strutture”, spiega il sindaco, “specie perché l’hotspot a ridosso dell’area portuale ha 220 posti, ma oggi le persone ospitate sono più di quattrocento. Per me il governo dovrebbe investire sull’accoglienza. Ma ora non possiamo fare altro che collaborare e stare con gli occhi aperti per capire cosa succederà nel nuovo centro di Pozzallo”. Secondo Ammatuna, negli anni le strutture di detenzione hanno creato solo problemi, violando i diritti umani. “Io sono un sindaco di frontiera”, dice Ammatuna. “Vedremo che succede, ma staremo attenti al rispetto della dignità delle persone”.

Trattenimento all’arrivo

Il progetto pilota di Pozzallo è stato confermato dal ministro dell’interno Matteo Piantedosi, che il 24 settembre ha detto: “La prima struttura di trattenimento di richiedenti asilo provenienti da paesi sicuri, come la Tunisia” servirà a “fare in modo che si possano realizzare velocemente, entro un mese, procedure di accertamento per l’esistenza dei presupposti dello status di rifugiato”.

Ed è a questa struttura – non ai Centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio (Cpr) – che si applicherà il decreto pubblicato sulla Gazzetta ufficiale il 21 settembre. Tra le altre cose, il testo prevede che un richiedente asilo possa evitare di essere recluso se è disposto a versare una fideiussione di circa cinquemila euro.

“La garanzia non riguarda le persone nei Cpr, cioè i cittadini espulsi per irregolarità acclarata nella loro condizione di soggiorno o per pericolosità accertata”, ha chiarito Piantedosi.

Quella di Pozzallo, ha proseguito il ministro, è “una scommessa” che prevede la possibilità di trattenere le persone, “l’alternativa è la garanzia anche di carattere economico per sottrarsi al trattenimento, se la cosa funzionerà e la porteremo avanti in maniera più estesa risolverà una situazione annosa”.

Secondo Gianfranco Schiavone, esperto di accoglienza e presidente del Consorzio italiano di solidarietà (Ics) di Trieste, “al momento c’è una grande confusione, gli annunci del governo sono lontani dalla realtà”.

“La prima cosa da verificare è che questo trattenimento dei richiedenti asilo che provengono da paesi cosiddetti sicuri sia in linea con quanto previsto dalla legge e che sia autorizzato da un giudice”, spiega Schiavone. Il timore è invece che sia privo di base giuridica, “come ha dimostrato per anni la situazione nell’hotspot di Lampedusa”. Per questo l’Italia è già stata condannata dalla Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea, ricorda l’esperto.

“Non basta il fatto di provenire da un paese considerato sicuro per essere trattenuti”, spiega Schiavone. A dirlo è anche la normativa europea, in particolare la direttiva 33 e la direttiva 32: la detenzione “non può essere automatica e generalizzata”. “Il semplice fatto di arrivare da paesi considerati sicuri non è un motivo sufficiente per giustificare la privazione della libertà”, sottolinea l’esperto.

La cauzione

Il decreto del 21 settembre introduce una cauzione di 4.938 euro per i richiedenti asilo che provengono da paesi terzi considerati sicuri, e che quindi hanno un’alta probabilità che le loro domande di asilo siano rigettate. Devono versarla se vogliono evitare di essere reclusi all’arrivo, come previsto dal decreto immigrazione del 19 settembre e dal decreto Cutro, approvato dal governo di Giorgia Meloni in seguito al naufragioavvenuto al largo delle coste di Steccato di Cutro, in Calabria, lo scorso febbraio, e convertito in legge a maggio.

Uno dei punti principali del decreto Cutro era la creazione di centri di detenzione in cui fare un esame “accelerato” delle domande d’asilo, la cosiddetta “procedura di frontiera”. Secondo il testo, se un richiedente asilo arriva da un paese considerato sicuro dal governo sarà trasferito dall’hotspot in un centro di detenzione, in attesa che la sua domanda d’asilo sia esaminata. La procedura “accelerata” dovrebbe portare a una risposta entro 28 giorni. Al momento i paesi considerati sicuri sono quindici, tra cui la Tunisia, la Costa d’Avorio e la Nigeria.

Fare una fideiussione bancaria di quasi cinquemila euro permetterebbe ai migranti di evitare la detenzione. La cifra è stata calcolata stimando le spese di alloggio per un mese, quelle quotidiane e quelle per il volo di rimpatrio, secondo quanto riportato nel decreto. Ma la misura è stata accusata di essere contraria alla costituzione e alle leggi nazionali e internazionali sul diritto d’asilo.

Secondo il giurista Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, si tratta di “una norma manifesto, odiosa, ma inapplicabile, dietro la quale si nascondono procedure accelerate che cancellano il diritto d’asilo e rendono le garanzie della difesa applicabili solo sulla carta, anche a causa dell’uso generalizzato delle videoconferenze, e delle difficoltà per i difensori di ottenere tempestivamente la documentazione relativa al richiedente asilo da assistere in sede di convalida o per un ricorso contro la decisione di rigetto della domanda”.

Con quest’ultimo atto il governo sembra voler fare concorrenza ai trafficanti

Secondo Caterina Bove, avvocata ed esperta d’immigrazione dell’Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione (Asgi), prevedere questa fideiussione è contrario ai principi della costituzione italiana sulla libertà personale: “La fideiussione richiesta è talmente alta che difficilmente un richiedente asilo potrà versarla. L’assenza di risorse finanziarie non può comportare il trattenimento, l’accoglienza dev’essere garantita a tutti, non solo a chi può permettersi di pagare. Questo è quello che dicono le direttive europee”.

Bove dice che la Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea si è espressa su questo: “In una sentenza del 14 maggio 2020 ha già escluso che un richiedente asilo possa essere trattenuto perché non ha le garanzie finanziarie richieste”.

“Sfido a trovare una persona che arrivi dalla Libia, dalla Tunisia o dalla rotta balcanica, capace di attivare una fideiussione di quel valore in Italia o in qualsiasi altro paese nel tempo previsto dal decreto”, ha commentato Filippo Miraglia, responsabile immigrazione dell’Arci.

“Con quest’ultimo atto”, conclude Miraglia, “il governo sembra voler fare concorrenza ai trafficanti, e non per proporre vie legali per venire in Italia, cosa che sarebbe auspicabile, ma chiedendo soldi per liberare i migranti dai centri di detenzione, proprio come fanno le milizie in Libia e non solo”.

Cpr e rimpatri

Il decreto approvato dal governo il 19 settembre prevede anche l’estensione della durata massima dei tempi di trattenimento degli stranieri nei centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio (Cpr).

In Italia questi centri sono stati istituiti nel 1998 e nel corso degli anni sono stati gradualmente chiusi a causa di problemi strutturali e per le numerose denunce di violazione dei diritti umani e di trattamenti inumani. Ma dal 2o17 sono stati riaperti e c’è il progetto di espanderli. Il governo Meloni ha promesso di costruirne uno in ogni regione, suscitando polemiche e sconcerto negli amministratori locali, che conoscono i costi e i problemi sanitari e di ordine pubblico legati a queste strutture.

Andrea Oleandri, direttore di Cild, che ha curato un rapporto sui Cpr definendoli Buchi neri, spiega che i centri sono stati gradualmente chiusi perché sono inefficienti e molto costosi: “L’ultimo bando di gara del ministero dell’interno ci dice che dieci centri per il rimpatrio costano allo stato più di cinquanta milioni di euro. Al momento ne sono attivi nove, perché nel frattempo il Cpr di Torino è stato chiuso. Noi l’abbiamo definito un affare, perché la gestione di questi centri è privata. E la detenzione amministrativa spesso è nelle mani di grandi multinazionali, che tagliano le spese a discapito dei servizi.L’anno scorso sono passate nei centri circa cinquemila persone e solo tremila sono state rimpatriate”.

Nei Cpr finiscono le persone che sono trovate sul territorio italiano senza avere il permesso di soggiorno in regola. Nelle strutture si dovrebbe procedere alla loro identificazione ed eventuale espulsione. “Sono persone che non hanno commesso reati”, spiega Oleandri. La durata massima del trattenimento è stata più volte modificata, ma gli esperti sostengono che non abbia alcuna influenza sul tasso di rimpatri.

Come spiega Oleandri: “La questione non è nei tempi, quanto nell’inutilità dei Cpr”. Secondo il rapporto di Cild, solo una persona su due fra quelle trattenute è rimpatriata, perché gli accordi di rimpatrio con i paesi di origine sono pochi, una situazione che prescinde dalla durata del trattenimento.

“Nel 2014 il tempo massimo che si poteva stare in un Cpr era di diciotto mesi, ma il tasso di rimpatrio delle persone che ci finivano era del 50 per cento, come quando la durata era di novanta giorni. I migranti sono rimpatriati subito, se ci sono degli accordi. Altrimenti non si possono rimpatriare, quindi rimangono nel centro fino allo scadere dei tempi e poi sono rilasciati”, spiega Oleandri. “Trattenere persone che non sono rimpatriabili è inutile e anche illegittimo”, continua.

“Sembra che il governo abbia ritirato fuori i Cpr in un momento di difficoltà per far vedere che sta facendo qualcosa sul tema dell’immigrazione, che tuttavia è molto più complesso e non c’entra molto con i centri d’espulsione”, conclude Oleandri.

▻https://www.internazionale.it/essenziale/notizie/annalisa-camilli/2023/09/26/centri-reclusione-migranti-cinquemila-euro

Turning the Exception into the Rule

Citation:

Finally, the law specifies that asylum seekers are to be detained unless they submit a passport (or equivalent document) or provide a financial guarantee of € 4,938.00. This amount was allegedly calculated with reference to the cost of suitable accommodation, repatriation, and minimum means of subsistence. The sum can be provided through a bank guarantee or an insurance policy, but solely by the asylum seekers themselves, not by third parties.
(...)

Finally, the Catania Tribunal argued that the financial guarantee to avoid detention is contrary to EU law. The Tribunal observed that the guarantee is not used as an alternative measure to detention, but rather as an ‚administrative requirement‘ that, if not complied with, leads to detention. According to the judge, this renders it incompatible with Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Directive 2013/33 which “preclude[s] an applicant for international protection being placed in detention on the sole ground that he or she is unable to provide for his or her needs.”(at 256).

As rightly noted by Savino, EU law does not prohibit the use of financial guarantees; to the contrary, Article 8(4) mentions it as a legitimate alternative to detention. However, both scholars and the European Asylum Agency maintain that the guarantee shall be proportionate to the means of the applicant in order to avoid discriminatory effects. The EUAA Guidelines on asylum seeker detention further specify that:

“the amount should be tailored to individual circumstances, and therefore be reasonable given the particular situation of asylum seekers, and not so high as to lead to discrimination against persons with limited funds. Any failure to be able to do so resulting in detention (or its continuation), would suggest that the system is arbitrary.”

It is doubtful whether the financial guarantee in its current legal design can be considered an “effective” alternative to detention (Art.8(4)). Its high amount (€4,938.00) and procedural requirements make it practically impossible for asylum applicants to rely upon it. In particular, they are required to deposit the sum upon arrival, through a bank guarantee or an insurance policy, which are concretely impossible for them to obtain. Moreover, the financial guarantee is the only alternative to detention provided by the new Italian law, while migrants detained under other circumstances can rely upon more alternative measures.

Taken together, it means that the measure is designed in a discriminatory way and is neither effective nor proportionate.

►https://seenthis.net/messages/1018938#message1023987

« Le problème, c’est qu’on est souvent à court de chaussure », indique Anna.

Y a peut-être un truc simple (?) à mettre en place entre le refuge de Briançon et celui de Oulx : rapporter les chaussures de montagne « prêtées ».

Les refuges de Oulx et de Briançon organisent le prêt de chaussures de montagne ; Oulx maintient un stock de différentes pointures, les migrants partent avec des « chaussures de traversée » au pieds et emmènent les leurs dans leur sac ; à l’arrivée au refuge de Briançon, ils « rendent » les « outils de traversée sécurisée » ; Briançon retourne les chaussures de prêt à Oulx, ou propose aux touristes qui traversent vers l’Italie de les retourner « pour la bonne cause ». Y a sans doute moyen de faire pareil pour les habits, chaussettes, chapeaux, gants, sacs à dos.

@olaf ça existe déjà...
et ça a été raconté dans un film (qui malheureusement aurait pu être bien mieux à mon goût), mais voici :
400 paires de bottes

Quelque part en Italie, dans les montagnes, non loin de la frontière avec la France, une paire de bottes Decathlon premier prix est chaussée par un homme venu d’Afrique de l’Ouest. Ces chaussures aux pieds, il se lancera dans la traversée nocturne de la frontière, à Montgenèvre, la plus ancienne des stations de sports d’hiver de France. Achetées à Turin par des Italiens solidaires de la cause des migrants, ces bottes auront été portées avant lui par des centaines d’autres hommes à la peau noire. Ramenées en Italie par des Français solidaires, elles seront portées après lui par bien d’autres. Passant de mains en mains, de mains en pieds, et de pieds en mains, la trajectoire circulaire des bottes dévoile un territoire de montagne situé aux confins de la France et de l’Italie, où échanges et liens de solidarité se nouent dans les rigueurs de l’hiver.

▻https://www.films-de-force-majeure.com/project/400_paires_de_bottes

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUEyx1Vws88&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.films-de-force-

BondyBlog doit pas être au courant non plus alors :-)

Migranti respinti al confine francese ’anche con droni’. Pieno il rifugio in Val di Susa ’dormono anche in terra

Respingimenti di migranti dalla gendarmerie francese verso il Piemonte in Valle di Susa. La denuncia arriva da Rainbow4Africa

Ancora respingimenti di migrati da parte della Gendarmerie francese verso il Piemonte dal confine verso l’Italia, la scorsa notte, in Valle di Susa (Torino).

A denunciarlo è il presidente della onlus Rainbow4Africa, Paolo Narcisi, che descrive l’affollamento al rifugio di Oulx, in alta Val di Susa.

«La situazione ci è stata aggiornata dai volontari della Croce Rossa intervenuti in soccorso- spiega Narcisi - Il rifugio è pieno, stimiamo oltre 180 i migranti ospitati - aggiunge Narcisi - abbiamo deciso di mettere gente a dormire in terra». Questa mattina intorno alle 8, sottolineano dalla onlus, altri 40 migranti sarebbero stati respinti, attraverso i boschi. I migranti, nei loro racconti, parlano «di droni utilizzati dalla Gendarmerie per allontanarli».

►https://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/2023/10/01/news/migranti_respinti_al_confine_franceseanche_con_droni_pieno_il_rifu

Sulle Alpi è caccia al migrante

Controlli rafforzati, inseguimenti, respingimenti e fermi. Il giro di vite francese. Intanto una sentenza europea condanna queste pratiche, in un cortocircuito fra Unione Europea e singoli Stati

La settimana scorsa, la prefettura delle Hautes-Alpes sulle Alpi al confine con l’Italia, ha annunciato l’arrivo, a partire da giovedì 21 settembre, di 84 agenti aggiuntivi destinati a rafforzare i controlli alla frontiera franco-italiana. Da allora gli arresti si sono moltiplicati attorno al confine, fino alla città di Briançon, e anche oltre, a oltre 20 km dal confine, dove la polizia sta rintracciando gli esuli per cacciarli dagli spazi pubblici.

Le pratiche di controllo sulle persone in transito nella città di Briançon sono cambiate: ogni giorno, più di dieci persone vengono trattenute presso la stazione di polizia, a volte per un’intera notte, a seguito di controlli d’identità nella città stessa, un evento piuttosto raro fino a ora. Le persone vengono inseguiti anche oltre Briançon, in treno, sugli autobus, e fino a Parigi. La presenza della polizia è rafforzata anche a Marsiglia, Gap e Grenoble.

Nella città di frontiera di Briançon, queste ondate di arresti dissuadono le persone dallo spostarsi, al sicuro solo nell’unica area di accoglienza attualmente aperta, un edificio occupato in autogestione. L’azienda pubblica locale delle acque potabili “Eau Service de la Haute Durance”, il cui presidente altri non è che il sindaco di Briançon, Arnaud Murgia, ha interrotto l’approvvigionamento idrico di questo edificio il 17 agosto. Aggravando la precarietà delle persone ospitate, questa decisione ha forti ricadute sulla salute e sul rispetto dei diritti fondamentali delle persone. È stato presentato un ricorso contro tale decisione, ma come potete leggere dalla recentissima sentenza del Tribunale amministrativo di Marsiglia (in francese), il ricorso è stato bocciato con giustificazioni burocratiche ( la non effettiva possibilità di accertare chi e come risiede nel centro di accoglienza...)

Il prefetto ha dato ordine di aumentare la presenza della polizia nella città . L’aumento dei controlli d’identità mirerebbe a prevenire un aumento dell’“inciviltà” legata al contesto di pressione migratoria. La polizia ribadisce che i controlli effettuati nella città alpina sono controlli cosiddetti “Schengen”, possibili in una fascia di 20 km dopo la frontiera, finalizzati alla ricerca e alla prevenzione della criminalità transfrontaliera.

La Cgue (Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea) ha ricordato chiaramente nella sua sentenza del 21 settembre (la trovate qui) che la Francia sta attuando pratiche illegali in termini di controlli e confinamento alle frontiere interne e che è tenuta a rispettare i testi europei , cosa che non avviene. 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.

Le associazioni Medici del Mondo e Tous Migrants hanno condotto un sondaggio di una settimana alla fine di agosto e i risultati delle osservazioni confermano ciò che viene documentato da diversi anni: questo sistema di controllo delle frontiere mette in pericolo le persone. Essa non impedisce assolutamente alle persone di entrare in Francia, ma anzi ne aumenta la vulnerabilità rendendo il passaggio più difficile e pericoloso.
Esemplificative in tal senso le storie di chi attraversa la frontiera: controlli a sorpresa, inseguimenti da parte delle forze dell’ordine, che provocano cadute, con fratture, distorsioni o perdita di coscienza. Camminando in media 10 ore dall’Italia per raggiungere Briançon, le persone segnalano estrema stanchezza, disidratazione e il rischio di perdersi tra le montagne. Alcuni hanno trascorso più di 48 ore in montagna, a volte senza mangiare né bere. Questo ennesimo attraversamento dei confini, con tentativi spesso multipli, si aggiunge a un viaggio migratorio estremamente faticoso: aspetti che possono fare riemergere esperienze traumatiche che potrebbero comportare cambiamenti nella salute mentale. I racconti raccolti nelle ultime settimane e le osservazioni di Medici del Mondo durante gli ambulatori medici confermano queste tendenze.

La maggior parte delle persone che attraversano il confine provengono da paesi dell’Africa sub-sahariana e, più recentemente, dal Sudan, e hanno diritto all’asilo o alla protezione sussidiaria. Respingerli in Italia in modo sistematico e collettivo ignora i diritti di asilo europei. Allo stesso modo, adottare misure di allontanamento nei loro confronti verso i loro paesi di origine, dove rischiano la morte o la tortura, è contrario al principio di non respingimento (articolo 33 della Convenzione del 1951 relativa allo status di rifugiato).

La Corte di giustizia europea con la sentenza del 21 settembre (giunta a seguito di un ricorso di varie associazioni francesi fra cui la protestante “La Cimade”) ha stabilito che i Paesi europei non hanno il diritto di rifiutare l’ingresso agli immigrati irregolari, anche se dispongono di controlli alle frontiere.

Il Paese deve rispettare la «direttiva rimpatri», una legge che stabilisce che a un cittadino extraeuropeo può «essere concesso un certo periodo di tempo per lasciare volontariamente il territorio».

«Si può decidere di rifiutare l’ingresso ma, quando si chiede l’allontanamento della persona interessata, devono comunque essere rispettate le norme e le procedure comuni previste dalla direttiva rimpatri», ha dichiarato il tribunale di Lussemburgo.

Ha inoltre affermato che «l’esclusione dall’ambito di applicazione di questa direttiva dei cittadini stranieri che soggiornano irregolarmente sul territorio» può essere effettuata solo «in via eccezionale».
Negli ultimi otto anni, tutti i treni che passano per la città costiera francese di Mentone sono stati controllati e la polizia ha monitorato i posti di frontiera e pattugliato le Alpi.

La decisione del tribunale europeo è arrivata in un momento in cui l’attenzione si è concentrata sul confine italo-francese. In seguito al recente arrivo di un gran numero di persone sull’isola italiana di Lampedusa, il ministro degli Interni francese, Gérald Darmanin, ha annunciato l’invio di 200 agenti di polizia supplementari al confine tra i due Paesi.

La Francia «non accoglierà i migranti» provenienti dall’isola italiana, ha dichiarato il ministro. Continua il corto circuito fra Unione Europea e singoli Stati.

Nel frattempo, la direttrice dipartimentale della polizia di frontiera, Emmanuelle Joubert, ha annunciato che più di 3.000 migranti sono stati fermati a Mentone nel giro di due settimane. Questo porta a 32.000 il numero di arresti dall’inizio dell’anno lungo il confine franco-italiano. Di questi, 24.000 sono stati respinti e consegnati alle autorità italiane.

Joubert ha dichiarato di essere stata informata della sentenza dalla Corte di giustizia europea. «Lo Stato sta effettuando un’analisi, avremo istruzioni più avanti», ha detto, aggiungendo che i migranti arrivati di recente a Lampedusa non dovrebbero arrivare al confine francese prima di «diverse settimane».

▻https://riforma.it/it/articolo/2023/10/04/sulle-alpi-e-caccia-al-migrante

Comment l’Europe sous-traite à l’Afrique le contrôle des migrations (2/4) : « Nous avons besoin d’aide, pas d’outils sécuritaires »

Au Sénégal, la création et l’équipement de postes-frontières constituent des éléments clés du partenariat avec l’Union européenne. Une stratégie pas toujours efficace, tandis que les services destinés aux migrants manquent cruellement de financements.

Par une étouffante journée de mars, j’arrive au poste de contrôle poussiéreux du village sénégalais de #Moussala, à la frontière avec le #Mali. Des dizaines de camions et de motos attendent, en ligne, de traverser ce point de transit majeur. Après avoir demandé pendant des mois, en vain, la permission au gouvernement d’accéder au poste-frontière, j’espère que le chef du poste m’expliquera dans quelle mesure les financements européens influencent leurs opérations. Refusant d’entrer dans les détails, il me confirme que son équipe a récemment reçu de l’Union européenne (UE) des formations et des équipements dont elle se sert régulièrement. Pour preuve, un petit diplôme et un trophée, tous deux estampillés du drapeau européen, trônent sur son bureau.

La création et l’équipement de postes-frontières comme celui de Moussala constituent des éléments clés du partenariat entre l’UE et l’#Organisation_internationale_pour_les_migrations (#OIM). Outre les technologies de surveillance fournies aux antennes de la Division nationale de lutte contre le trafic de migrants (DNLT, fruit d’un partenariat entre le Sénégal et l’UE), chaque poste-frontière est équipé de systèmes d’analyse des données migratoires et de systèmes biométriques de reconnaissance faciale et des empreintes digitales.

Officiellement, l’objectif est de créer ce que les fonctionnaires européens appellent un système africain d’#IBM, à savoir « #Integrated_Border_Management » (en français, « gestion intégrée des frontières »). Dans un communiqué de 2017, le coordinateur du projet de l’OIM au Sénégal déclarait : « La gestion intégrée des frontières est plus qu’un simple concept, c’est une culture. » Il avait semble-t-il en tête un changement idéologique de toute l’Afrique, qui ne manquerait pas selon lui d’embrasser la vision européenne des migrations.

Technologies de surveillance

Concrètement, ce système IBM consiste à fusionner les #bases_de_données sénégalaises (qui contiennent des données biométriques sensibles) avec les données d’agences de police internationales (comme #Interpol et #Europol). Le but : permettre aux gouvernements de savoir qui franchit quelle frontière et quand. Un tel système, avertissent les experts, peut vite faciliter les expulsions illégales et autres abus.

Le risque est tout sauf hypothétique. En 2022, un ancien agent des services espagnols de renseignement déclarait au journal El Confidencial que les autorités de plusieurs pays d’Afrique « utilisent les technologies fournies par l’Espagne pour persécuter et réprimer des groupes d’opposition, des militants et des citoyens critiques envers le pouvoir ». Et d’ajouter que le gouvernement espagnol en avait parfaitement conscience.

D’après un porte-parole de la Commission européenne, « tous les projets qui touchent à la sécurité et sont financés par l’UE comportent un volet de formation et de renforcement des capacités en matière de droits humains ». Selon cette même personne, l’UE effectue des études d’impact sur les droits humains avant et pendant la mise en œuvre de ces projets. Mais lorsque, il y a quelques mois, l’eurodéputée néerlandaise Tineke Strik a demandé à voir ces études d’impact, trois différents services de la Commission lui ont envoyé des réponses officielles disant qu’ils ne les avaient pas. En outre, selon un de ces services, « il n’existe pas d’obligation réglementaire d’en faire ».

Au Sénégal, les libertés civiles sont de plus en plus menacées et ces technologies de surveillance risquent d’autant plus d’être utilisées à mauvais escient. Rappelons qu’en 2021, les forces de sécurité sénégalaises ont tué quatorze personnes qui manifestaient contre le gouvernement ; au cours des deux dernières années, plusieurs figures de l’opposition et journalistes sénégalais ont été emprisonnés pour avoir critiqué le gouvernement, abordé des questions politiques sensibles ou avoir « diffusé des fausses nouvelles ». En juin, après qu’Ousmane Sonko, principal opposant au président Macky Sall, a été condamné à deux ans d’emprisonnement pour « corruption de la jeunesse », de vives protestations ont fait 23 morts.

« Si je n’étais pas policier, je partirais aussi »

Alors que j’allais renoncer à discuter avec la police locale, à Tambacounda, autre grand point de transit non loin des frontières avec le Mali et la Guinée, un policier de l’immigration en civil a accepté de me parler sous couvert d’anonymat. C’est de la région de #Tambacounda, qui compte parmi les plus pauvres du Sénégal, que proviennent la plupart des candidats à l’immigration. Là-bas, tout le monde, y compris le policier, connaît au moins une personne qui a tenté de mettre les voiles pour l’Europe.

« Si je n’étais pas policier, je partirais aussi », me confie-t-il par l’entremise d’un interprète, après s’être éloigné à la hâte du poste-frontière. Les investissements de l’UE « n’ont rien changé du tout », poursuit-il, notant qu’il voit régulièrement des personnes en provenance de Guinée passer par le Sénégal et entrer au Mali dans le but de gagner l’Europe.

Depuis son indépendance en 1960, le Sénégal est salué comme un modèle de démocratie et de stabilité, tandis que nombre de ses voisins sont en proie aux dissensions politiques et aux coups d’Etat. Quoi qu’il en soit, plus d’un tiers de la population vit sous le seuil de pauvreté et l’absence de perspectives pousse la population à migrer, notamment vers la France et l’Espagne. Aujourd’hui, les envois de fonds de la diaspora représentent près de 10 % du PIB sénégalais. A noter par ailleurs que, le Sénégal étant le pays le plus à l’ouest de l’Afrique, de nombreux Ouest-Africains s’y retrouvent lorsqu’ils fuient les problèmes économiques et les violences des ramifications régionales d’Al-Qaida et de l’Etat islamique (EI), qui ont jusqu’à présent contraint près de 4 millions de personnes à partir de chez elles.

« L’UE ne peut pas résoudre les problèmes en construisant des murs et en distribuant de l’argent, me dit le policier. Elle pourra financer tout ce qu’elle veut, ce n’est pas comme ça qu’elle mettra fin à l’immigration. » Les sommes qu’elle dépense pour renforcer la police et les frontières, dit-il, ne servent guère plus qu’à acheter des voitures climatisées aux policiers des villes frontalières.

Pendant ce temps, les services destinés aux personnes expulsées – comme les centres de protection et d’accueil – manquent cruellement de financements. Au poste-frontière de Rosso, des centaines de personnes sont expulsées chaque semaine de Mauritanie. Mbaye Diop travaille avec une poignée de bénévoles du centre que la Croix-Rouge a installé du côté sénégalais pour accueillir ces personnes expulsées : des hommes, des femmes et des enfants qui présentent parfois des blessures aux poignets, causées par des menottes, et ailleurs sur le corps, laissées par les coups de la police mauritanienne. Mais Mbaye Diop n’a pas de ressources pour les aider. L’approche n’est pas du tout la bonne, souffle-t-il : « Nous avons besoin d’aide humanitaire, pas d’outils sécuritaires. »

La méthode de la carotte

Pour freiner l’immigration, l’UE teste également la méthode de la carotte : elle propose des subventions aux entreprises locales et des formations professionnelles à ceux qui restent ou rentrent chez eux. La route qui mène à Tambacounda est ponctuée de dizaines et de dizaines de panneaux publicitaires vantant les projets européens.

Dans la réalité, les offres ne sont pas aussi belles que l’annonce l’UE. Binta Ly, 40 ans, en sait quelque chose. A Tambacounda, elle tient une petite boutique de jus de fruits locaux et d’articles de toilette. Elle a fait une année de droit à l’université, mais le coût de la vie à Dakar l’a contrainte à abandonner ses études et à partir chercher du travail au Maroc. Après avoir vécu sept ans à Casablanca et Marrakech, elle est rentrée au Sénégal, où elle a récemment inauguré son magasin.

En 2022, Binta Ly a déposé une demande de subvention au Bureau d’accueil, d’orientation et de suivi (BAOS) qui avait ouvert la même année à Tambacounda, au sein de l’antenne locale de l’Agence régionale de développement (ARD). Financés par l’UE, les BAOS proposent des subventions aux petites entreprises sénégalaises dans le but de dissuader la population d’émigrer. Binta Ly ambitionnait d’ouvrir un service d’impression, de copie et de plastification dans sa boutique, idéalement située à côté d’une école primaire. Elle a obtenu une subvention de 500 000 francs CFA (762 euros) – soit un quart du budget qu’elle avait demandé –, mais peu importe, elle était très enthousiaste. Sauf qu’un an plus tard, elle n’avait toujours pas touché un seul franc.

Dans l’ensemble du Sénégal, les BAOS ont obtenu une enveloppe totale de 1 milliard de francs CFA (1,5 million d’euros) de l’UE pour financer ces subventions. Mais l’antenne de Tambacounda n’a perçu que 60 millions de francs CFA (91 470 euros), explique Abdoul Aziz Tandia, directeur du bureau local de l’ARD. A peine de quoi financer 84 entreprises dans une région de plus d’un demi-million d’habitants. Selon un porte-parole de la Commission européenne, la distribution des subventions a effectivement commencé en avril. Le fait est que Binta Ly a reçu une imprimante et une plastifieuse, mais pas d’ordinateur pour aller avec. « Je suis contente d’avoir ces aides, dit-elle. Le problème, c’est qu’elles mettent très longtemps à venir et que ces retards chamboulent tout mon business plan. »

Retour « volontaire »

Abdoul Aziz Tandia admet que les BAOS ne répondent pas à la demande. C’est en partie la faute de la bureaucratie, poursuit-il : Dakar doit approuver l’ensemble des projets et les intermédiaires sont des ONG et des agences étrangères, ce qui signifie que les autorités locales et les bénéficiaires n’exercent aucun contrôle sur ces fonds, alors qu’ils sont les mieux placés pour savoir comment les utiliser. Par ailleurs, reconnaît-il, de nombreuses régions du pays n’ayant accès ni à l’eau propre, ni à l’électricité ni aux soins médicaux, ces microsubventions ne suffisent pas à empêcher les populations d’émigrer. « Sur le moyen et le long termes, ces investissements n’ont pas de sens », juge Abdoul Aziz Tandia.

Autre exemple : aujourd’hui âgé de 30 ans, Omar Diaw a passé au moins cinq années de sa vie à tenter de rejoindre l’Europe. Traversant les impitoyables déserts du Mali et du Niger, il est parvenu jusqu’en Algérie. Là, à son arrivée, il s’est aussitôt fait expulser vers le Niger, où il n’existe aucun service d’accueil. Il est alors resté coincé des semaines entières dans le désert. Finalement, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) l’a renvoyé en avion au Sénégal, qualifiant son retour de « volontaire ».

Lorsqu’il est rentré chez lui, à Tambacounda, l’OIM l’a inscrit à une formation de marketing numérique qui devait durer plusieurs semaines et s’accompagner d’une allocation de 30 000 francs CFA (46 euros). Mais il n’a jamais touché l’allocation et la formation qu’il a suivie est quasiment inutile dans sa situation : à Tambacounda, la demande en marketing numérique n’est pas au rendez-vous. Résultat : il a recommencé à mettre de l’argent de côté pour tenter de nouveau de gagner l’Europe.

►https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2023/09/07/comment-l-europe-sous-traite-a-l-afrique-le-controle-des-migrations-2-4-nous
#OIM #retour_volontaire

Comment l’Europe sous-traite à l’Afrique le contrôle des migrations (3/4) : « Il est presque impossible de comprendre à quoi sert l’argent »

A coups de centaines de millions d’euros, l’UE finance des projets dans des pays africains pour réduire les migrations. Mais leur impact est difficile à mesurer et leurs effets pervers rarement pris en considération.

Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.
La reproduction totale ou partielle d’un article, sans l’autorisation écrite et préalable du Monde, est strictement interdite.

Au chapitre migrations, rares sont les projets de l’Union européenne (UE) qui semblent adaptés aux réalités africaines. Mais il n’est pas sans risques de le dire tout haut. C’est ce que Boubacar Sèye, chercheur dans le domaine, a appris à ses dépens.

Né au Sénégal, il vit aujourd’hui en Espagne. Ce migrant a quitté la Côte d’Ivoire, où il travaillait comme professeur de mathématiques, quand les violences ont ravagé le pays au lendemain de l’élection présidentielle de 2000. Après de brefs séjours en France et en Italie, Boubacar Sèye s’est établi en Espagne, où il a fini par obtenir la citoyenneté et fondé une famille avec son épouse espagnole. Choqué par le bilan de la vague de migration aux Canaries en 2006, il a créé l’ONG Horizons sans frontières pour aider les migrants africains en Espagne. Aujourd’hui, il mène des recherches et défend les droits des personnes en déplacement, notamment celles en provenance d’Afrique et plus particulièrement du Sénégal.

En 2019, Boubacar Sèye s’est procuré un document détaillant comment les fonds des politiques migratoires de l’UE sont dépensés au Sénégal. Il a été sidéré par le montant vertigineux des sommes investies pour juguler l’immigration, alors que des milliers de candidats à l’asile se noient chaque année sur certaines des routes migratoires les plus meurtrières au monde. Lors d’entretiens publiés dans la presse et d’événements publics, il a ouvertement demandé aux autorités sénégalaises d’être plus transparentes sur ce qu’elles avaient fait des centaines de millions d’euros de l’Europe, qualifiant ces projets de véritable échec.

Puis, au début de l’année 2021, il a été arrêté à l’aéroport de Dakar pour « diffusion de fausses informations ». Il a ensuite passé deux semaines en prison. Sa santé se dégradant rapidement sous l’effet du stress, il a fait une crise cardiaque. « Ce séjour en prison était inhumain, humiliant, et il m’a causé des problèmes de santé qui durent jusqu’à aujourd’hui, s’indigne le chercheur. J’ai juste posé une question : “Où est passé l’argent ?” »

Ses intuitions n’étaient pas mauvaises. Les financements de la politique anti-immigration de l’UE sont notoirement opaques et difficiles à tracer. Les demandes déposées dans le cadre de la liberté d’information mettent des mois, voire des années à être traitées, alors que la délégation de l’UE au Sénégal, la Commission européenne et les autorités sénégalaises ignorent ou déclinent les demandes d’interviews.

La Division nationale de lutte contre le trafic de migrants (DNLT, fruit d’un partenariat entre le Sénégal et l’UE), la police des frontières, le ministère de l’intérieur et le ministère des affaires étrangères – lesquels ont tous bénéficié des fonds migratoires européens – n’ont pas répondu aux demandes répétées d’entretien pour réaliser cette enquête.
« Nos rapports doivent être positifs »

Les rapports d’évaluation de l’UE ne donnent pas de vision complète de l’impact des programmes. A dessein ? Plusieurs consultants qui ont travaillé sur des rapports d’évaluation d’impact non publiés de projets du #Fonds_fiduciaire_d’urgence_de_l’UE_pour_l’Afrique (#EUTF), et qui s’expriment anonymement en raison de leur obligation de confidentialité, tirent la sonnette d’alarme : les effets pervers de plusieurs projets du fonds sont peu pris en considération.

Au #Niger, par exemple, l’UE a contribué à élaborer une loi qui criminalise presque tous les déplacements, rendant de fait illégale la mobilité dans la région. Alors que le nombre de migrants irréguliers qui empruntent certaines routes migratoires a reculé, les politiques européennes rendent les routes plus dangereuses, augmentent les prix qu’exigent les trafiquants et criminalisent les chauffeurs de bus et les sociétés de transport locales. Conséquence : de nombreuses personnes ont perdu leur travail du jour au lendemain.

La difficulté à évaluer l’impact de ces projets tient notamment à des problèmes de méthode et à un manque de ressources, mais aussi au simple fait que l’UE ne semble guère s’intéresser à la question. Un consultant d’une société de contrôle et d’évaluation financée par l’UE confie : « Quel est l’impact de ces projets ? Leurs effets pervers ? Nous n’avons pas les moyens de répondre à ces questions. Nous évaluons les projets uniquement à partir des informations fournies par des organisations chargées de leur mise en œuvre. Notre cabinet de conseil ne réalise pas d’évaluation véritablement indépendante. »

Selon un document interne que j’ai pu me procurer, « rares sont les projets qui nous ont fourni les données nécessaires pour évaluer les progrès accomplis en direction des objectifs généraux de l’EUTF (promouvoir la stabilité et limiter les déplacements forcés et les migrations illégales) ». Selon un autre consultant, seuls les rapports positifs semblent les bienvenus : « Il est implicite que nos rapports doivent être positifs si nous voulons à l’avenir obtenir d’autres projets. »

En 2018, la Cour des comptes européenne, institution indépendante, a émis des critiques sur l’EUTF : ses procédures de sélection de projets manquent de cohérence et de clarté. De même, une étude commanditée par le Parlement européen qualifie ses procédures d’« opaques ». « Le contrôle du Parlement est malheureusement très limité, ce qui constitue un problème majeur pour contraindre la Commission à rendre des comptes, regrette l’eurodéputée allemande Cornelia Ernst. Même pour une personne très au fait des politiques de l’UE, il est presque impossible de comprendre où va l’argent et à quoi il sert. »

Le #fonds_d’urgence pour l’Afrique a notamment financé la création d’unités de police des frontières d’élite dans six pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest, et ce dans le but de lutter contre les groupes de djihadistes et les trafics en tous genres. Or ce projet, qui aurait permis de détourner au moins 12 millions d’euros, fait actuellement l’objet d’une enquête pour fraude.
Aucune étude d’impact sur les droits humains

En 2020, deux projets de modernisation des #registres_civils du Sénégal et de la Côte d’Ivoire ont suscité de vives inquiétudes des populations. Selon certaines sources, ces projets financés par l’EUTF auraient en effet eu pour objectif de créer des bases de #données_biométriques nationales. Les défenseurs des libertés redoutaient qu’on collecte et stocke les empreintes digitales et images faciales des citoyens des deux pays.

Quand Ilia Siatitsa, de l’ONG britannique Privacy International, a demandé à la Commission européenne de lui fournir des documents sur ces projets, elle a découvert que celle-ci n’avait réalisé aucune étude d’impact sur les droits humains. En Europe, aucun pays ne possède de base de données comprenant autant d’informations biométriques.

D’après un porte-parole de la Commission, jamais le fonds d’urgence n’a financé de registre biométrique, et ces deux projets consistent exclusivement à numériser des documents et prévenir les fraudes. Or la dimension biométrique des registres apparaît clairement dans les documents de l’EUTF qu’Ilia Siatitsa s’est procurés : il y est écrit noir sur blanc que le but est de créer « une base de données d’identification biométrique pour la population, connectée à un système d’état civil fiable ».

Ilia Siatitsa en a déduit que le véritable objectif des deux projets était vraisemblablement de faciliter l’expulsion des migrants africains d’Europe. D’ailleurs, certains documents indiquent explicitement que la base de données ivoirienne doit servir à identifier et expulser les Ivoiriens qui résident illégalement sur le sol européen. L’un d’eux explique même que l’objectif du projet est de « faciliter l’identification des personnes qui sont véritablement de nationalité ivoirienne et l’organisation de leur retour ».

Quand Cheikh Fall, militant sénégalais pour le droit à la vie privée, a appris l’existence de cette base de données, il s’est tourné vers la Commission de protection des données personnelles (CDP), qui, légalement, aurait dû donner son aval à un tel projet. Mais l’institution sénégalaise n’a été informée de l’existence du projet qu’après que le gouvernement l’a approuvé.

En novembre 2021, Ilia Siatitsa a déposé une plainte auprès du médiateur de l’UE. En décembre 2022, après une enquête indépendante, le médiateur a rendu ses conclusions : la Commission n’a pas pris en considération l’impact sur la vie privée des populations africaines de ce projet et d’autres projets que finance l’UE dans le cadre de sa politique migratoire.

Selon plusieurs sources avec lesquelles j’ai discuté, ainsi que la présentation interne du comité de direction du projet – que j’ai pu me procurer –, il apparaît que depuis, le projet a perdu sa composante biométrique. Cela dit, selon Ilia Siatitsa, cette affaire illustre bien le fait que l’UE effectue en Afrique des expériences sur des technologies interdites chez elle.

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2023/09/08/comment-l-europe-sous-traite-a-l-afrique-le-controle-des-migrations-3-4-il-e

https://visionscarto.net/local/cache-vignettes/L1024xH746/31012485697_a8db-5e7ac-c3235.jpg?1693817115#.jpg

#camps_ouverts #camps_fermés #détention_administrative #rétention #cartographie #visualisation #Europe #UE #EU #asile #migrations #réfugiés #déboutés

#frontex #ignominie