Bijlagen bij SWD(2014)316 - On the Assessment of the implementation of the Greek Action Plan on Asylum and Migration management - Hoofdinhoud
Dit is een beperkte versie
U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.
| dossier | SWD(2014)316 - On the Assessment of the implementation of the Greek Action Plan on Asylum and Migration management. |
|---|---|
| document | SWD(2014)316  |
| datum | 6 oktober 2014 |
Achievements in the area of reception of applicants for international protection, including of vulnerable groups
• Limited increase in the number of open reception places for applicants for international protection and vulnerable persons. Out of 1 160 places25, 536 places are currently co-funded by ERF 2008-2013, 352 places are currently funded by the State Budget, and 272 places are currently funded by the European Economic Area grants.
• Improvement of the referral system to open accommodation for applicants for international protection and vulnerable persons by the appointment of the National Centre for Social Solidarity as the Referral Authority and the cooperation between the competent authorities (Police, First Reception Service, Asylum Service).
• Identification of seven new structures (three in Attica and one each in Serres, Dikaia, Sparti and Sidirokastro) in the framework of the implementation of the agreement reached with the Commission in December 2013.
24
Soufli (Alexandroupoli), Feres (Alexandroupoli), Tychero (Alexandroupoli), Filakio Kyprinou (Orestiada), Venna (Rhodopi),
Samos, Pagani Lesvos, Mersinidi (Chios), Thessaloniki, Eleftherios Venizelos (Athens airport) and Petrou Ralli (Athens). 25 On September 2014 only 1 139 places were operational according to information received.
3. Ongoing and incomplete implementation of agreed actions and shortcomings still to be tackled
The improvements mentioned above remain limited and much more need to be undertaken by the Greek authorities in view of ensuring that all applicants receive reception conditions in line with the requirements of the EU asylum acquis. In particular, open reception capacity needs to be expanded and adapted to the specific situation of applicants and take into consideration their particular vulnerability, as foreseen in the Action Plan.
In addition, in line with the commitments set out in the revised Greek Action Plan, common standard operation procedures which were required in order to ensure an efficient operational management of the open accommodation facilities, have not, to date, been adopted in all relevant Ministries. Although UNHCR has already developed such standards as part of the measures implementing the transitional phase of the asylum system in Greece (co-financed under the ERF emergency mechanism), their adoption in the Greek law is still pending. A monitoring mechanism for the sustainable and undisrupted operation of the facilities and provision of services is still not in place. Concerns also remain with regard to the financial and operational sustainability of all open accommodation projects in the mid and long term.
Ongoing and incomplete issues in the area of reception of applicants for international protection, including of vulnerable groups
• Setting up a minimum of 2 500 places in open accommodation for applicants of international protection by the end of 2014 and conducting an annual review of the situation, in line with the agreement reached with the Commission.
• Establishment of Common Standard Operating Procedures in all relevant Ministries and of a monitoring mechanism for the sustainable and undisrupted operation of the facilities and provision of services (i.e. legal aid, psychosocial services and access to the necessary health care and treatment).
• Sustainability of the system of provision of material reception conditions and, in particular, of the operation of open reception facilities through an effective use of funding (from EU and national budget). This will require the Greek authorities to ensure the timely planning, availability and disbursement of EU and national funding needed for the undisrupted operation of the required minimum open reception capacity, taking into account that disruptions due to lack of such planning do not constitute an emergency situation justifying EU top-up funding.
V. Return and detention of irregularly staying third-country nationals
1. Main shortcomings identified
Back in 2010, the following shortcomings were identified:
The low performance in returning irregular migrants. In 2009, Greece issued 42% of the EU’s return decisions, but it only managed to carry out 8% of those return decisions. There was no programme to promote and support voluntary return and reintegration. Greece experienced difficulties in cooperating with third-countries for the readmission of their nationals (especially with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh).
Inadequate facilities to detain irregular migrants and poor quality of the assistance provided in detention. As outlined in Chapter I, many reports from international organisations and NGOs, as well as ECtHR judgments, had regularly pointed out that Greece detains irregular migrants in inadequate facilities or in police stations for the full length of their detention period and highlighted the inhumane detention conditions of irregular migrants in Greece, due to the absence of medical, psychological and legal assistance.
2. Current situation/achievements
The revised Greek Action Plan adopted in 2013 provides for a list of specific actions to remedy this situation focusing on three aspects: the management of the return process, the improvement of the detention conditions and the provision of services in the pre-removal centres.
The Action Plan foresaw actions to increase capacity to carry-out forced and voluntary return
and actions to improve the cooperation with third countries. As a result, the number of
effective returns has significantly increased from 20 342 to 26 186 between 2009 and 2013.
While in 2008, Greece effectively returned only 30 Afghanis, 10 Bangladeshis and 80
Pakistanis, in 2013 it respectively returned 735, 1 365 and 4 835 migrants from these third-countries26.
The original objective of the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection was to establish pre-removal facilities of a total capacity of 10 000 places by the first semester of 2014. There were discussions between the Commission and Greece on the needs for pre-removal centres, for funding and on Greece’s financial capacity to ensure sustainable management of its detention facilities. Following these discussions the projects to build pre-removal centres in ex-military camps located in Ritsona (800 places), Karoti (600 places) and in West Macedonia (2 000 places) were, abandoned and an agreement was reached that a capacity of 7 000 – 7 500 places in pre-removal centres is sufficient.
All these structures are, however, not yet available because the construction of the centre in Lesvos is not yet completed and renovation work is on-going in several other centres, in order to improve the detention conditions. The new detention centres established in Police Academy premises and ex-military camps needed renovation works. With the support of the RF, the Greek authorities carried out refurbishment and maintenance works, as provided under the revised Action Plan. However, this process is ongoing.
The revised Action Plan, finally, foresaw the recruitment of interpreters and translators in order to improve the provision of information and of social workers and psychologists to provide psychosocial support. Actions to provide healthcare and free legal assistance to migrants placed in detention were also planned.
To implement these actions, Greece received significant financial support from the EU. Over the period 2008-2013, Greece was the biggest beneficiary of the Return Fund receiving around EUR 125 M plus almost EUR 5 M in emergency funding. 50% of this allocation was earmarked for the implementation of actual returns (in earlier annual programmes focussing mostly on forced returns, but in later years becoming nearly equally allocated to both voluntary and forced returns) and approximately 32 % for costs related to detention facility in order to improve their conditions. The remaining 18% of the Return Fund allocations was
26Source: EUROSTAT
used to co-finance different support and capacity building measures deemed essential to boost the Greek return capacity.
Achievements in the area of return and detention of irregular migrants
- Improving the performance in returning irregular migrants
• Greece has significantly improved its performance in returning irregular migrants.27 Greece has developed in cooperation with IOM, a voluntary return program to encourage return and support the reintegration of the migrants. In parallel, the Hellenic Police also developed its own voluntary return programme.28
- Inadequate facilities to detain irregular migrants
• Greece has increased the capacity of the Amygdaleza pre-removal centre from 210 places in September 2012 to 2 000 places and has also established five new pre-removal centres in Corinth (1 536 places), Xanthi (480 places), Komotini (600 places), Paranesti (997 places), Lesvos (600 places)29. Taking into account the detention centre of Fylakio (374 places) and Attica Aliens Directorate30 (340), the total capacity in the pre-removal centres will be up to 6 927 places.
- Improving detention conditions and the quality of the assistance provided in detention
• The old detention centres of Pagani in Lesvos, Palio Elliniko, Aspropyrgos, Tychero, Piraeus and Venna, which were all not suitable for holding migrants, were closed down.
• The detention conditions in the old detention centre of Attica Aliens Directorate have been improved in order to reach the minimum standards. The common and sanitary facilities were refurbished. Recreational opportunities were provided to the detainees.
• Under the RF, a total amount of EUR 20 M was earmarked for the establishment /refurbishment of the pre-removal facilities in Korinthos, Amygdaleza, Xanthi, Komotini, Paranesti and Lesvos. The renovation work is on-going in all these centres.
• The material detention conditions in the pre-removal centres have been improved. An approximate amount of EUR 20 M, under the RF, allows for co-financing selected categories of running costs.
• Psychological and social support, as well as medical assistance necessary was introduced in the detention facilities.
3. Ongoing and incomplete implementation of agreed actions and shortcomings still to be tackled
27 Over the period 2009-2013, the number of returns has increased from 20 342 to 26 186 while the number of migrants ordered to return has decreased from 77 000 to 42 800. Overall, out of the total number of migrants returned from the EU, the percentage of those effectively returned from Greece has constantly increased from 8% in 2009 to 26.2 % in 2013.
28 In 2013, the ratio between voluntary and forced returns was about 40% voluntary returns and 60% forced returns in Greece. This corresponds to the average in the EU according to FRONTEX 2014 risk analysis data.
29 Greece has requested to transform this Centre into an open accommodation facility for asylum seekers. The request is currently under examination by the Commission.
30 Located in Petrou Ralli.
Despite the fact that Greece has increased its number of returns, there is still a gap between the number of decisions issued and the number of decisions effectively implemented. There is a need to support the voluntary return of a higher number of migrants.
This is also due to the fact that, as in many other Member States, Greece still experiences difficulties to return migrants back to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Even if Greece has significantly increased the number of returns to these third-countries, they still represent by far the main nationalities of irregular migrants to be returned. The main challenge is the lack of cooperation of the authorities to readmit their nationals who do not accept to return voluntarily. Efforts aiming to improve the cooperation with the Pakistani authorities under the EU-Pakistan readmission agreement have been undertaken and more are being planned or prepared. Greece should benefit from these efforts, although their efficiency remains uncertain. In accordance with the Action Plan, at the operational level, Greece has committed to continue its cooperation with the consular authorities of these third countries.
Shortcomings in the provision of services in detention centres were identified; in particular, the psychological and social support was often disrupted for several months because of the delay to renew the contracts of the interpreters, social workers and psychologists, as well as medical assistance was provided only in some detention facilities and on a non-systematic basis by non-governmental organisations.
For instance, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection and the Ministry of Health was only signed in September 2013. The deployment of the medical personnel has only begun as of April 2014. This MoU covers only the assistance to the pre-removal centres while health assistance shall be provided in all detention centres.
In addition, the MoU between the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection and the Athens Bar Association to provide free legal assistance to migrants was only signed on 3 April 2014 with nearly two years of delay. The grant agreement is not yet signed. As a result, free legal assistance is not yet offered on a regular basis to irregular migrants in all detention facilities, in order to challenge return decisions or detention orders.
More generally, Greece is legally obliged to ensure that the return and detention of irregular migrants is carried out in full compliance with the Return Directive and the Charter for Fundamental Rights.
Ongoing and incomplete issues in the area of return and detention of irregular migrants
• Consolidation and sustainability of all past (see Chapter V.2) and future achievements reached so far in the area of returns needs to be ensured, while ensuring full respect of the principle of non-refoulement.
• Allocation of the necessary resources, funding and personnel to increase the number of returns and improve the relation with concerned third-countries.
• Ensuring the completion of all the on-going actions to improve the detention conditions in the pre-removal centres.
• Detention of irregular migrants must only be applied as a last resort in full respect of the common standards provided by the Return Directive, and therefore not in police stations and sub-standard detention centres.
• Provision of services, such as medical assistance, free legal assistance and psychological support to be guaranteed in an undisrupted, systematic and well-coordinated manner throughout all detention facilities, including regular police
stations, as foreseen in the Action Plan.
• Alternatives to detention to be developed (for example open accommodation centres for irregular migrants under assisted voluntary return programmes).
• Improvement of the judicial review of return decision and detention orders (i.e. training for judges, improvement of access to legal assistance for persons in return proceedings).
• Ensuring the proper functioning of the forced-return monitoring system.
VI. Border management
1. Main shortcomings identified
Greece was confronted with massive migratory pressure at its external borders between 2008 and 2010. The Greek-Turkish land border was the main point of entry of irregular migrants coming to Greece. In 2009 Greece accounted for 75% of all irregular entries along the Schengen external borders31, a percentage which increased even to 86% in 2010. The Schengen evaluation carried out in Greece in 2010 at land, sea and air borders highlighted extensive and systematic shortcomings in the area of border management. These shortcomings needed to be addressed, in order for Greece to carry out border control in full compliance with the Schengen acquis.
The evaluation report highlighted in particular that the personnel, infrastructure, equipment available and inter-agency cooperation were not sufficient to allow the border control authorities and the border guard units to carry out high-quality controls. Furthermore, the level of professionalism observed was largely inappropriate for the challenges faced by the authorities conducting such controls. Risk analysis at the regional or local level was almost non-existent. Finally, the need to improve further international cooperation with neighbouring countries, in particularly with Turkey, was also highlighted.
In the past, several reports32 contained allegations with regard to acts of the Greek authorities responsible for border control which could constitute a violation of fundamental rights and principles of the EU law. In particular, the reports referred to cases in which persons intercepted at the sea and the land external borders were allegedly seriously mistreated; summary forced return of migrants intercepted at the sea and at the external land border with Turkey; conduct of border surveillance in a way that apparently put the safety of persons seriously at risk33.
2. Current situation/achievements
Given the extensive scope of the recommendations in the evaluation reports of 2010, a specific "Greece-Schengen" Action Plan had been adopted by the Council and annual peer-to-peer review missions were conducted to Greece34. In parallel, Greece presented eight progress
32 I.e. Pro Asyl, Human Rights Watch, European Parliament's LIBE Committee Delegation ("LIBE Report"), the report by Thomas Hammarberg.
33 Case 2009/4104 – Violation of asylum acquis – In particular concerns the Schengen Borders Code (regulation EC 562/2006), the reception conditions directive (2003/9/EC), the asylum procedures directive (2005/85/EC) and the qualifications directive (2004/83/EC).
34 In March 2011, May 2012 and October 2013.
31 Source: Frontex 2010 and 2011 Annual Risk Assessments.
reports on the implementation of this National Action Plan between November 2010 and July 2013. The Commission also monitored the implementation of all the outstanding recommendations, which were included in the Greek Action plan on asylum and migration.
This monitoring process resulted that most recommendations were followed up progressively and important improvements were registered, as also indicated in the JHA Council Conclusions of June 2014.
The implementation of the Greek actions have been carried out with the support of the EU financial assistance. However, the EU funding possibilities available for actions on border management were only partially used in the first half of the respective programming period. In fact, only 43% of the EBF allocation for 2007-2010 (EUR 78 M) was actually absorbed, also due to the inadequacy of public procurement processes and complex national administrative procedures, which resulted overall in rather limited structural investment in border management.
Frontex provided an important contribution to the control of the Greek borders; the Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABITs) were launched in November 2010, in order to face the exceptional pressure at the Greek borders. During the operational period – lasting from 2 November 2010 to 2 March 2011- every week close to 200 well-trained guest officers from 26 Member States assisted their Greek colleagues in controlling the border areas, as well as in identifying the apprehended irregular immigrants. Since then, Greece has been continuously supported in the framework of the Joint Operations coordinated by Frontex (Poseidon Land and Sea).
Following the allegations of possible violations of fundamental rights by Greek border authorities (serious mistreatments during border surveillance operations and push-back practices at the external border), the Commission has asked clarifications from Greece. In particular, in December 2013 the Commission started an inquiry. Following a first clarification from the Greek authorities in February, the Commission asked for further clarifications. Last clarifications provided by Greece are still under assessment.
Achievements in the area of border management
• Improvement in the facilities and equipment used for border checks and border surveillance, with a significant contribution of the EU funds (EUR 207 M were allocated to Greece between 2007 and 2013 under the EBF complemented by EUR 5 M of emergency assistance).
• Set-up of a comprehensive risk-analysis system.
• Intensification of inter-service cooperation, in particular by setting up an inter-ministerial Committee and a National Coordination Centre (NCC), as well as coordination centres at regional and local level.
• Reinforcement of the training system, in order to cover all fields of the Schengen Borders Code and all levels of personnel.
• Control of the Greek-Turkish land border, in particular by carrying out the "Shield operation" from 2 August 2012, co-financed by EU funds (EBF), which involved the deployment of significant number of extra border guards at that border section, operation which reduced dramatically the number of irregular border crossings.
• Start of an automatic surveillance system along the Greek-Turkish land border.
• Improvement in the cooperation with Turkey, especially at land border, where
operational cooperation was significantly enhanced.
3. Ongoing and incomplete implementation of agreed actions and shortcomings still to be tackled
In order to achieve the objectives set out in the Action Plan, Greece will need to further develop, consolidate and finalise additional actions, in order to sustain these achievements (see section VI.2) and further enhance its border management system.
In addition, there is a need to maximise the use of the ISF-Borders, ensuring the timely implementation of projects, improving the public procurement procedure and ensure full absorption of funds available, in order to complete the process already started, moving from handling emergencies and ensure a structural and sustainable management of its borders. Full absorption of available funding against the background of limited financial resources is essential in order to meet the objectives mentioned above.
Ongoing and incomplete issues in the area of border management
• Finalisation of a national strategy on border management, including all components and defining relevant strategic and financial priorities, maximising the use of the ISF-Borders available.
• Consolidation of the NCC, in order to ensure effectiveness and full compliance with the Eurosur Regulation.
• Consolidation of the control of the Greek-Turkish land border, also by the reinforcement of technical equipment (e.g. by extending the existing Automated Border Surveillance System), which could allow for a more efficient use of the human resources available in the different areas.
• Development of a strategy and an investment plan to ensure an adequate capacity of surveillance of the external maritime borders, also maximising the use of available technology and combining with the existing support provided by Joint Operations coordinated by Frontex.
• Finalisation of the still outstanding shortcomings on infrastructure and facilities identified during the Schengen evaluations.
• Enhancement of the cooperation with Turkey, in particular at sea borders, taking the experience of the results achieved at the operational level with regard to the land borders.
VII. Conclusion
Since 2010 Greece has implemented a variety of actions aimed at addressing the systemic flaws and deficiencies in respect of the asylum procedure, the reception conditions as well as the return and border management systems. In particular, while back in 2010 there were no adequate structures and procedures in place to ensure access to an effective and fair asylum procedure, the establishment and operation of Regional Asylum Offices and Mobile Units, of the Asylum Service and of the Appeals Authority are some of the significant steps taken by the Greek authorities. Steps were also taken in view of ensuring adequate living conditions in detention facilities, notably the closing down of the vast majority of inadequate detention facilities and the establishment of pre-removal centres. In addition, Greece has committed to
increase, by the end of 2014, the capacity of open reception facilities to a minimum of 2 500 places where adequate material reception and living conditions are to be provided to applicants for international protection.
However, to overcome all the remaining systemic flaws in the Greek asylum system as identified in the relevant judgements of the ECtHR and CJEU and to ensure an effective and protective management of the asylum and migration policies, the Greek authorities have committed to taking further steps, building also on the understanding reached during the policy dialogue on the new HOME AFFAIRS Funds referred to in the Introduction.
In particular, Greece has committed to ensure implementation of all the pending actions listed in the Action Plan by December 2014 at the latest35, a summary of which has been identified in section 3 of each Chapter in this document.
Summary of measures which Greece has committed to implement
- Detention of irregular migrants and applicants for international protection to be used only under the limited circumstances and with the prescribed legal and procedural safeguards laid down in the EU acquis;
- Adequate living conditions to be provided in all facilities hosting applicants for international protection and irregular migrants (open and closed facilities), including undisrupted provision of services such as legal aid, psychosocial services and access to the necessary health care and treatment;
- A comprehensive national strategy for the treatment of unaccompanied minors in all relevant policy areas, to be developed and implemented;
- Completion of all national actions/measures that need to be taken in order to guarantee an effective and fair asylum procedure, including the full clearance of the backlog;
- Completion of all national actions/measures to be taken in order to guarantee an effective border management;
- Consolidation of all national actions/measures to be implemented in order to guarantee the sustainability of the established institutional structures and of the relevant procedures and services provided;
- Improvement of the procedures and systems for the absorption of EU funds, to prevent the discrepancy between the allocated and used funds in the framework of the AMIF and ISF.
Finally, a long term national strategy in the areas of border management, asylum and return after the end of the implementation period of the Action Plan (December 2014) will need to be put in place in view of guaranteeing sustainability of the achievements made so far and to promote contingency planning in these areas.
While increased EU funding in the HOME field will be available to Greece over the period 2014-2020 to help overcoming all the remaining flaws and deficiencies of its current migration, asylum and border management system, this support will not be able to cater for all needs. For this reason Greece will need to develop a comprehensive national financial
35 To be noted that the deadline for the clearance of the pending asylum cases (“backlog”) was set for May 2015.
strategy, building upon the national budget and possible additional use of other EU funding sources such as the Structural Funds.