Yesterday, the Greek authorities furthered Europe’s border externalisation policy through the formal designation of Turkey as a safe country for Afghan, Syrian, Somali, Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals.

    Announced in a new Joint Ministerial Decision, this means that all new asylum claims made by people of these nationalities may face expedited examination of their claim, and likely will have their application for asylum rejected as ‘inadmissible’ on the grounds that Turkey is a safe country for them – meaning that they could be “readmitted” (deportated) to Turkey, without an examination of the merits of their asylum claim – i.e. the reason they left their home country. The populations targeted are by no means surprising: as of April 2021, the majority of the migrant population on the Aegean islands are from Afghanistan (50%), Syria (15%) and Somalia (8%).

    Turkey is not a safe third country for migrants. Most migrants are unable to access any form of protection in Turkey, owing to a geographic restriction that it imposed to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and migrants there are at grave risk of exploitation, inhumane detention, and deportation. Only Syrian nationals are able to obtain a form of temporary protection, which falls far short of refugee protection and, in practice, provides little defence against refoulement.

    The EU-Turkey Statement had a clear mandate to exclude all new arrivals from obtaining international protection in Europe, and to confine those who did arrive in liminal European territory until they could be returned. However, since the codification of the EU-Turkey Statement into Greek law in 2016, only Syrian nationals have been found “inadmissible” on the (objectively erroneous) grounds that Turkey is a safe country from which they could seek and obtain international protection. This was despite political pressure from the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to reject all asylum claims as inadmissible since the EU-Turkey Statement’s implementation.

    Yesterday’s decision expanding the notion that Turkey is “safe” for five additional nationalities is indeed a step further in “the full and unconditional implementation” of the EU-Turkey Statement, as confirmed by Minister of Migration and Asylum N. Mitarachis. Moreover, it is an explicit and unapologetic endorsement of Europe’s drive to exclude migrants from its territory, which are manifest in its policies of systematic violence and continued, fatal disregard for migrant lives.

    Αριθμ. 42799, Καθορισμός τρίτων χωρών που χαρακτηρίζονται ως ασφαλείς και κατάρτιση εθνικού καταλόγου, κατά τα οριζόμενα στο άρθρο 86 του ν. 4636/2019 (Α’ 169).


    #Grèce #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_afghans #réfugiés_bangladais #réfugiés_syriens #réfugiés_somaliens #réfugiés_pakistanais #pays_sûr


      Athens, 14 June 2021: With a new Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD) issued on 7 June,[1] the Greek State designates Turkey as a “safe third country” for families, men, women and children of five nationalities[2] seeking international protection in Greece. It is noted that the JMD applies even to those from countries with high recognition rates for international protection, such as Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia.[3] This decision reinforces the policy established by the March 2016 EU-Turkey Statement that shifts the responsibility to protect refugees, including unaccompanied children,[4] arriving in Europe to third countries.

      For years, the effect of this externalisation policy has been to turn the Greek islands into a place of confinement for thousands of displaced and persecuted people, as authorities prioritised “containing” them on the islands to facilitate their return to third countries. This created places like Moria that became shameful symbols of Europe’s failure to protect refugees. But the solution is not to send displaced individuals to Turkey. In Turkey, people seeking asylum from non-European countries are not granted international protection per the 1951 Refugee Convention, while in March 2021 Turkey announced it would withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, and will thus not be protecting victims of gender-based violence, who are at an increased risk in case of return from Greece, based on the new JMD. People should not be returned to a country where their lives would be in danger, but multiple reports over recent years warn of the refoulement of refugees from Turkey, even to war zones in Syria.[5] Furthermore, the concept of a “safe third country” presupposes the existence of an essential connection between the asylum seeker and that country, as well as the consent of the third country to receive the returnee. These conditions are not met in the case of Turkey.

      The decision to designate Turkey as a “safe third country”, should be revoked for the aforementioned reasons. Furthermore, the unworkability of this new law is highlighted, since as far back as March 2020, Turkey is not accepting the return of refugees and asylum seekers from Greece. This has been pointed out by Greece’s Ministry of Migration and Asylum as well as the European Commission.[6]Refugees whose applications have been rejected as inadmissible according to the “safe third country” principle, are already enduring a situation of protracted legal uncertainty, social exclusion, destitution, homelessness, and even prolonged detention in Greece, which is at risk of turning into a prison.[7] This JMD will serve only to increase the number of people in such a situation.

      In fact, as has been pointed out in relevant interventions by the Greek Ombudsperson, and more recently in a reply by the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission,[8] in these cases applicants must be able to re-apply for asylum, and have their applications examined on their merits, in accordance with EU and national law.[9]

      In line with a recent announcement by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),[10] our organisations stress that “externalization simply shifts asylum responsibilities elsewhere and evades international obligations”. We once again call on the Greek and European authorities to honour their responsibility to protect refugees and to avoid further undermining the European asylum acquis and the fundamental principles and values for protecting human rights. To this end, we call on Greece to revoke the JMD issued on 7 June.


      Action for education

      ΑRSIS – Association for the Social Support of Youth

      Better Days

      Centre Diotima



      Equal Rights Beyond Borders

      Europe Must Act

      European Lawyers in Lesvos (ELIL)

      Fenix – Humanitarian Legal Aid

      Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)

      Greek Forum of Migrants

      Greek Forum of Refugees (GFR)

      Greek Helsinki Monitor

      Hellenic League for Human Rights (HLHR)


      Human Rights Legal Project

      Initiative for the Detainees’ Rights

      International Rescue Committee (IRC)


      INTERSOS Hellas

      Irida Women’s Center

      Legal Centre Lesvos

      Lesvos Solidarity

      Lighthouse Relief

      Médecins du Monde – Greece

      METAdrasi- Action for Migration and Development

      Mobile Info Team (MIT)

      Network for Children’s Rights

      Network for the Social Support of Refugees and Migrants


      Refugees International

      Refugee Law Clinic Berlin

      Refugee Legal Support (RLS)

      Refugee Rights Europe (RRE)

      Refugee Support Aegean (RSA)

      Samos Volunteers


      Still I Rise

      Terre des hommes Hellas


      Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD) 42799/2021, Gov. Gazette 2425/Β/7-6-2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3gjEYcI. ↑
      The JMD applies to nationals of Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Bangladesh and Pakistan ↑
      Indicatively, in 2020, the rate of positive decisions issued by the Greek Asylum Service (GAS) for asylum applicants from Somalia was 94.1%, from Syria 91.6% and from Afghanistan 66.2%. RSA, “Asylum statistics for 2020 A need for regular and transparent official information”, 11 February 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3vcbC5K. ↑
      According to the latest available statistics issued by the National Center for Social Solidarity (EKKA), 68% of unaccompanied children that have been identified in Greece are from Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Accordingly, and in any case, the implementation of the JMD is not in line with the principle of the best interests of the child and the protective provisions of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. On the latest available statistics see EKKA, Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece, 15 May 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3wcByPw. ↑
      Amongst others: EASO, Syria Situation of returnees from abroad: Country of Origin Information, June 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3weoZUn, pp. 12-13; AIDA, Country Report Turkey (May 2021 update), 31 May 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3gfnyzr; DW, “Amnesty: Turkey forced Syrian refugees back into war zone”, 25 October 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3pAOpc3; ECRE, “Human Rights Watch report: push backs of Syrian refugees by Turkey”, 30 March 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2T43XsK; Human Rights Watch, “Turkey: Syrians Pushed Back at the Border”, 23 November 2015, available at: https://bit.ly/3x2tPUA. ↑
      Amongst others: Ministry of Migration and Asylum, “Request by Greece towards the EU for the immediate return 1,450 third country nationals under the Joint EU-Turkey Statement”, 14 January 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3izPzmA; European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Turkey 2020 Report, 6 October 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3xgt4aK, p. 48. ↑
      It is noted that the majority (65.8%) of international protection applications that were submitted in Greece in 2020 regarded asylum seekers from the 5 countries that are stated in the JMD. Ministry of Migration and Asylum, Annual briefing 2020, 19 January 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3wfCgfi, p.13. ↑
      EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on behalf of the European Commission (1.6.2021), διαθέσιμο στα αγγλικά στο: https://bit.ly/3cuwEGb. ↑
      Article 38, para. 4 Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) and article 86, para. 5 L. 4636/2019 (also known as “IPA”). ↑
      UNHCR, “UNHCR warns against “exporting” asylum, calls for responsibility sharing for refugees, not burden shifting”, 19 May 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3v7EgEN. ↑


  • A Bangladeshi migrant becomes the first ’environmentally displaced’ person in France

    Last month, the appeals court for the Administrative Court of Bordeaux granted the status of “sick foreigner” to a Bangladeshi suffering from a respiratory disease, taking into account the air pollution in his country of origin. The decision was a first in France.

    Living in France for almost a decade, Sheel*, a Bangladeshi suffering from a respiratory disease, obtained his first “residence permit for sick foreigners” in 2015. The Toulouse-based 40-something suffers from a form of severe asthma that needs extensive treatment as well as severe sleep apnea, requiring him to sleep with breathing assistance every night.

    Despite his fragile state of health, in June 2019 his residence permit was denied renewal and he risked deportation, as the prefecture deemed that he could obtain appropriate treatment in Bangladesh. His request for family reunification with his wife, who remained in the country, was also rejected.

    A year later, the administrative court overturned the prefect’s order, arguing that while medicines to relieve asthma attacks are available for sale in Bangladesh, there is no substantive treatment. But the prefect did not stop there and took the case to the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, which on December 18, 2008, confirmed the first judgment and even added a relevant factor that was unheard of in France: that of air pollution in Bangladesh.
    Bangladesh among the most polluted countries in the world

    “This is the first time in France that a court has taken into account environmental criterion to justify a person benefitting from the status of a sick foreigner,” Ludovic Rivière, Sheel’s lawyer, told InfoMigrants. “Because it is obvious that the environmental conditions in Bangladesh today make it possible to affirm that it would be illusory for my client to be treated there, it would amount to sending him to certain death.”

    Indeed, in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, the level of fine particles in the air is six times higher than that allowed by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to the WHO’s 2016 figures, some 572,600 deaths in Bangladesh are attributable to non-communicable diseases, 82% of which are due to exposure to indoor air pollution.

    Bangladesh also ranks 178th in the Environmental Performance Index, established by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities to assess global air “quality,” ranking it among the most polluted countries in the world.

    In addition to the dangers of air pollution, the French court also recognized that the daily power cuts and high temperatures in Bangladesh did not allow the use of the night ventilation device that Sheel needs.
    Case law for ’climate refugee’ status?

    “Just as an AIDS patient cannot be sent back to a country where he cannot be treated or a death row inmate to a state that practices capital punishment, Sheel cannot be deported to Bangladesh. We are still a long way from making precedent and creating a real climate refugee status in France,” said Rivière, who now hopes that the government and the courts will consider the climate issue more systematically. “The candidates for climate exile are going to be more and more numerous, and politicians will have no choice but to address them quickly.”

    François Gemenne, a teacher and specialist in environment-related migration, also sees a “step in the right direction” but doubts that the decision of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal will be replicated. “Among the applicants for protection, there are many victims of environmental degradation, this plays a real role in the causes of departure, but it is very rarely invoked with the authorities, simply because it is almost never admissible and the applicants are well aware of this,” the researcher told InfoMigrants.

    According to Gemenne, while the Sheel case is unprecedented, environmental criteria are occasionally taken into account by the French justice system. “These are very sporadic decisions, every two or three years. There have already been several cases in which people could not be deported to their region of origin because it was too exposed to natural disasters. It should be possible to build a precedent from all these cases, except that the current political climate is not in favor of broadening the criteria for obtaining asylum,” he said.

    However, Gemenme said an existing tool could make it possible to change the situation. The Nansen Agenda, ratified by 110 countries including France in 2015, has the potential to define clear protection criteria for climate refugees, but it is not binding. France, which until December 2020 was at the head of the rotating presidency of the Platform on Disaster Related Displacement, has not announced any concrete measures in this regard.

    Sheel, for his part, said he was overwhelmed by his new status as a trailblazer in France. Relieved by the court’s decision, he wants simply to continue his life, as well as his work in the restaurant sector. His priority is restarting his family reunification file again in order to reunite with his wife, whom he has not seen for nine years.

    The United Nations Environment Programme predicts 250 million climate refugees worldwide by 2050.


    #France #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Bangladesh #réfugiés_bangladais #réfugiés_climatiques #réfugiés_environnementaux #pollution #pollution_de_l'air #titre_de_séjour_pour_étranger_malade #maladie #titre_de_séjour #statut #maladie_respiratoire #asthma

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • Tribunale L’Aquila: sì a protezione umanitaria per povertà e cambiamenti clima

    La situazione di povertà e le problematiche legate ai cambiamenti climatici giustificano la protezione umanitaria dei richiedenti asilo.

    Con una interessante e innovativa ordinanza del Tribunale dell’Aquila, datata 18 febbraio 2018, è stata riconosciuta la protezione umanitaria ad un cittadino del Bangladesh il quale aveva dichiarato di essersi irrimediabilmente indebitato dopo aver perso il suo terreno agricolo a causa di un alluvione.

    A darne notizia su Melting Pot è l’avvocato di Sulmona Chiara Maiorano, esperta sui temi del diritto dell’immigrazione e della protezione internazionale, della tratta degli esseri umani, del contrasto alla violenza di genere e del diritto dell’ambiente legato al fenomeno delle ’migrazione ambientali’, socio dell’Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) e membro attivo della sezione ASGI Abruzzo.

    Il giudice, nel motivare la propria decisione che farà scuola in Italia, in primo luogo fa riferimento alle problematiche legate ai cambiamenti climatici che interessano il Bangladesh, tra cui evidenzia il land grabbing e la deforestazione, citando in merito il rapporto “Crisi Ambientali e migrazioni forzate - A Sud Onlus 2016”. Inoltre, ricorda che l’Italia ha ratificato con L. n. 881/1997, art. 11, il Patto internazionale relativo ai diritti economici, sociali e culturali e il Patto Internazionale relativo ai diritti civili e politici che prevedono, il primo, che gli Stati aderenti al patto citato riconoscano il diritto di ogni individuo ad un livello di vita adeguato per sé e per la propria famiglia, che includa un’alimentazione, un vestiario, un alloggio adeguati, nonché il miglioramento continuo delle proprie condizioni di vita; mentre con l’altro gli Stati si impegnano a riconoscere il diritto fondamentale di ogni individuo alla libertà dalla fame, adottando individualmente e attraverso la cooperazione internazionale tutte le misure adeguate, rilevando che tali principi internazionali trovano riscontro nella Carta Costituzionale art. 2 c 32.

    Infine, tenendo anche conto della circolare prot. 00003716 del 30.7.2015 del Ministero dell’Interno, Commissione Nazionale per il diritto di Asilo in cui sono dati evidenziati tra i motivi della concessione umanitaria anche le gravi calamità naturali o altri gravi fattori locali ostativi ad un rimpatrio in dignità e sicurezza, riconosce al cittadino bengalese la protezione umanitaria.


    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #protection_subsidiaire #pauvreté #climat #Italie #jurisprudence #changement_climatique #réfugiés_bangladais #Bangladesh #protection_humanitaire #tribunal #justice
    cc @isskein