The undersigned civil society organisations would like to express their concerns with regard to several aspects of the Commission’s proposal amending the Schengen Borders Code.

Overall, the proposal embraces a very harmful narrative which assumes that people crossing borders irregularly are a threat to the EU and proposes to address it by increasing policing and curtailing safeguards. At the same time, the proposal fails to recognise the lack of regular pathways for asylum seekers, who are often forced to turn to irregular border crossings in order to seek international protection within the EU, and further complicates access to asylum. The measures put forward by the Commission would have a detrimental impact on the right to freedom of movement within the EU, the principle of non-discrimination, access to asylum and the harmonisation of procedures under EU law. Furthermore, the proposal would increase the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies, without any adequate safeguards.

Freedom of movement within the EU and violation of the principle of non-discrimination

Several provisions of the proposed amended Schengen Borders Code would encroach the right to freedom of movement within the EU (art. 3(2) TEU, art. 21 and 77 TFEU) by expanding the possibility to reintroduce internal border controls and facilitating the application of so-called “alternative measures” which in practice amount to discriminatory border controls. The discretionary nature of these border checks is very likely to disproportionately target racialised communities, and practically legitimise ethnic and racial profiling and expose people to institutional and police abuse.

While the amended Schengen Borders Code reiterates that internal border controls are prohibited in the Schengen area, it also introduces the possibility to carry out police checks in the internal border areas with the explicit aim to prevent irregular migration, when these are based on “general information and experience of the competent authorities” (rec. 18 and 21 and art. 23). In addition, the proposal clarifies the meaning of “serious threat” which justifies the temporary reintroduction of border controls (which was already possible under art. 25 of the 2016 SBC). Problematically, the proposed definition of “serious threat” also includes “a situation characterised by large scale unauthorised movements of third country nationals between member states, putting at risk the overall functioning of the area without internal border control” (art. 25).-1-

Such provisions, together with the new procedure set by article 23a and analysed below, will in practice legalise systematic border controls which target people based on their racial, ethnic, national, or religious characteristics. This practice is in clear violation of European and international anti-discrimination law and a breach to migrants’ fundamental rights.

Research from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency in 2021 shows that people from an ‘ethnic minority, Muslim, or not heterosexual’ are disproportionately affected by police stops, both when they are walking and when in a vehicle. In addition, another study from 2014 showed that 79% of surveyed border guards at airports rated ethnicity as a helpful indicator to identify people attempting to enter the country in an irregular manner before speaking to them.

The new provisions introduced in the amended Schengen Borders Code are likely to further increase the discriminatory and illegal practice of ethnic and racial profiling and put migrant communities at risk of institutional violence, which undermines the right to non-discrimination and stands at odds with the European Commission’s commitments under the recent Anti-Racism Action Plan.

Lack of individual assessment and increased detention

The proposed revisions to the Schengen Borders Code set a new procedure to “transfer people apprehended at the internal borders”. According to the proposed new rules, if a third country national without a residence permit or right to remain crosses the internal borders in an irregular way (e.g., from Germany to Belgium, or from Italy to France) and if they are apprehended “in the vicinity of the border area,” they could be directly transferred back to the competent authorities in the EU country where it is assumed they just came from, without undergoing an individual assessment (art. 23a and Annex XII). This provision is very broad and can potentially include people apprehended at train or bus stations, or even in cities close to the internal borders, if they are apprehended as part of cross-border police cooperation (e.g. joint police patrols) and if there is an indication that they have just crossed the border (for instance through documents they may carry on themselves, their own statements, or information taken from migration or other databases).

The person will be then transferred within 24 hours.-2- During these 24 hours, Annex XII sets that the authorities might “take appropriate measures” to prevent the person from entering on the territory – which constitutes, in practice, a blanket detention provision, without any safeguards nor judicial overview. While the transfer decision could be subject to appeal, this would not have a suspensive effect. The Return Directive would also be amended, by introducing an obligation for the receiving member state to issue a return decision without the exceptions currently listed in article 6 (e.g., the possibility to issue a residence permit for humanitarian or compassionate reasons). As a consequence, transferred people would be automatically caught up in arbitrary and lengthy detention and return procedures.-3-

Courts in Italy, Slovenia and Austria have recently ruled against readmissions taking place under informal or formal agreements, recognising them as systematic human rights violations with the potential to trigger so-called chain pushbacks. The courts found the plaintiffs were routinely returned from Italy or Austria through Slovenia to Croatia, from where they had been illegally pushed back to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In practice, this provision would legalise the extremely violent practice of “internal pushbacks” which have been broadly criticised by civil society organisations across the EU and condemned by higher courts. The new procedure, including the possibility to detain people for up to 24 hours, would also apply to children, even though this has been deemed illegal by courts and despite international consensus that child detention constitutes a human rights violation.

Access to asylum

The new Code introduces measures which member states can apply in cases of “instrumentalisation of migrants”, which is defined as “a situation where a third country instigates irregular migratory flows into the Union by actively encouraging or facilitating the movement of third country nationals to the external borders” (art. 2). In such cases, member states can limit the number of border crossing points and their opening hours, and intensify border surveillance including through drones, motion sensors and border patrols (art. 5(4) and 13(5)). The definition of instrumentalisation of migrants should also be read in conjunction with the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation addressing situations of instrumentalisation in the field of migration and asylum, which provides member states with numerous derogations to the asylum acquis.

These measures unjustifiably penalise asylum seekers by limiting access to the territory and de facto undermining art. 31 of the Refugee Convention which prohibits States from imposing penalties on refugees on account of their entry or presence in their territory without authorization, and are therefore in violation of international law. 

Harmonisation of procedures under EU law and asylum acquis

The proposal lifts the standstill clause introduced by the 2008 Return Directive (art. 6(3)) which prohibits member states from negotiating new bilateral readmission agreements. When negotiating the 2008 Return Directive, both the Commission and the European Parliament had clarified that bilateral readmission agreements should remain an exception, as they undermine the objective of harmonising procedures under EU law.

By incentivising states to adopt new bilateral agreements, and proposing a new internal transfer procedure, the Commission’s proposal promotes the proliferation of exceptional procedures, which are outside the framework set by the Return Directive and the asylum acquis, and circumvents the procedural safeguards included in the Dublin Regulation.

The proposed provisions undermine the substantive and procedural guarantees for third country nationals, such as the right to request asylum, the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, and the right to an effective remedy.

As mentioned above, several national-level courts have ruled on the unlawfulness of readmissions carried out under formal and informal agreements, which often led to instances of chain-refoulement. There is a serious risk that readmission agreements, if they remain a part of the current legislative proposal, could be further abused to perpetrate chain refoulement and collective expulsions, which are in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Use of monitoring and surveillance technologies

Lastly, the proposal also facilitates a more extensive use of monitoring and surveillance technologies, by clarifying that these are part of member states’ responsibility to patrol borders (art. 2). In addition, article 23, analysed above, clarifies that internal checks, including to prevent irregular migration, can be carried out “where appropriate, on the basis of monitoring and surveillance technologies generally used in the territory”.

By removing obstacles for a more extensive use of monitoring and surveillance technologies, these provisions would create a loophole to introduce technologies which would otherwise be discouraged by pre-existing EU legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation.-4-

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other automated decision-making systems, including profiling, are increasingly used in border control and management for generalised and indiscriminate surveillance. Insofar as such systems are used to ‘detect human presence’ for the purpose of ‘combating irregular migration’, there is serious concern that such systems can facilitate illegal interdiction, violence at border crossings, and further limit access to asylum and other forms of protection.

Furthermore, these technologies disproportionately target racialised people, thus further exacerbating the risks of increased racial and ethnic profiling. Indeed, monitoring and surveillance technologies which make use of artificial intelligence by nature violate the right to non-discrimination insofar as they are trained on past data and decision-making, and therefore codify assumptions on the basis of nationality and other personal characteristics, which is prohibited by international racial discrimination law.-5-

Recommendations

In light of the concerns discussed above, the undersigned civil society organisations:

• Express their concerns on the harmful impact of narratives which consider people crossing borders irregularly as a threat, and recommend the European Parliament and the Council to delete such references from recital 29, article 23 and article 25(1)(c);
• Call on the EU institutions to uphold the right to freedom of movement and the principle of non-discrimination, including by prohibiting the use of technologies which make use of artificial intelligence and other automated decision-making systems. In this regard, we recommend the European Parliament and the Council to amend article 23, paragraph (a) by deleting the reference to “combat irregular residence or stay, linked to irregular migration” in point (ii) and deleting point (iv) on monitoring and surveillance technologies;
• Urge the EU institutions to uphold the right to apply for asylum, and recommend deleting the definition of ‘instrumentalisation of migration’ in article 2, paragraph 27 and all the ensuing provisions which would apply in this circumstance;
• Condemn the proliferation of exceptional procedures which undermine the right to an individual assessment, and recommend deleting article 23a, annex XII, and the proposed amendment to art. 6(3) of the Return Directive;
• Express their concerns at the glaring inconsistency between some of the proposed provisions and the European Commission’s commitments under the EU Action Plan against Racism, i.e. with respect to ending racial profiling, and call on the EU institutions to uphold their commitment to address and to combat structural and institutional discrimination and include explicit references to the Action Plan against Racism in the text of the Schengen Borders Code.

Signatories:

European/ international networks and organisations

• Access Now
• Action Aid International
• Border Violence Monitoring Network
• Caritas Europa
• Centre for Youths Integrated Development (CYID)
• Danish Refugee Council
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice
• EuroMed Rights
• Fair Trials
• FEANTSA – European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless
• MiGreat – Belgium
• La Strada International
• Oxfam International
• Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
• Sea-Watch e.V.
• Quaker Council for European Affairs

National level networks and organisations

• 11.11 – Belgium
• Artha project – Belgium
• Association for the Social Support of Youth (ARSIS) – Greece
• Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) – Italy
• ASTI – Association de soutien aux travailleurs immigrés – Luxembourg
• Caritas International – Belgium
• Centre for Peace Studies – Croatia
• Digitale Gesellschaft – Switzerland
• FAIRWORK Belgium – Belgium
• Fundacion Cepaim – Spain
• Human Rights Defenders e.V. – Germany 
• Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) – Italy
• KISA – Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism – Cyprus
• Mujeres Supervivientes – Spain
• NGO Legis – North Macedonia
• Platform minors in exile – Belgium
• Progress Lawyers Network – Belgium
• Red Acoge – Spain
• Refugees Welcome – Denmark
• Red Solidaria de Acogida – Spain
• Servicio Jesuita a Migrantes (SJM) – Spain
• Stap Verder –The Netherlands
• Stichting LOS (Landelijk Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt) – The Netherlands

-1- In this regard, it is relevant to highlight that, while temporary reintroduction of internal border controls should only be a measure of “last resort”, this has been done in more than 300 cases since 2006.

-2- Third country nationals “transferred” from one EU member state to another would be handed to the police in the receiving member state. The only requirement to carry out this procedure is to fill out a simple form which states the person’s identity, the way the person’s identity was established, the grounds for refusal and the date of the transfer. If the third country national refuses to sign, it will be enough for the authorities to indicate this in the comments section.

-3- These risks are exacerbated by the lack of harmonisation of protection standards for stateless persons.

-4- See, for instance, Article 22, which states that “data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her”, or Article 9, which imposes specific rules regarding the collection and use of sensitive data.

-5- UN Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965; EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 21; UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 5.

#UsToo The most at risk of gender based violence are among the least protected and supported

Together we call on the European Union to adopt a forward-thinking and truly inclusive approach to gender-based violence – that leaves no one behind and strives to achieve real change in the lives of all people, without discrimination. To meaningfully address gender-based violence in the European Union, we must promote inclusion, safety, protection, well-being and effective remedies for those most at risk.

In the lead up to International Women’s Day, 8 March, and the expected publication of a draft EU law to address violence against women and domestic violence, the under-signed organisations have adopted this manifesto for a truly inclusive EU law and policy. We welcome the leadership of the European Commission in taking action, and the engagement of the European Parliament, and urge everyone who will be involved in this effort to take an inclusive and intersectional feminist approach.

People facing marginalisation and intersectional discrimination – such as racialised women, women with disabilities, sex workers, those of lower socio-economic status, experiencing homelessness, with precarious or irregular migration status, as well as people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions and sex characteristics including trans and non-binary people, are among the most at risk of gender-based violence and least protected and supported by existing efforts to prevent and tackle violence and other harm.

Measures that aim to address gender-based violence by focusing on increasing criminalisation, policing and incarceration can make many people and communities more vulnerable, reproducing structural, institutional and interpersonal discrimination and violence.-1-

We urge the European Union decision makers to strive for an ambitious and comprehensive package of legal, policy and financial measures to address gender-based violence and to ensure victims’ rights that:

• Centres the perspectives, concerns and recommendations of those facing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.
• Takes an intersectional and rights-based approach, recognising that to achieve gender equality and freedom from gender-based violence and protect fundamental rights for all, we have to address all forms of violence, in particular when linked to gender, gender identity and expression, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, age, disability, class, religion and migration status, and that those who experience intersectional discrimination face greater vulnerability to all forms of gender-based violence and domestic violence.-2-
• Addresses structural and historical harms and drivers of gender-based violence, and underlying issues such as poverty and oppression, including those created, enabled and normalised by states.
  • Addresses the laws, policies, practices and by-laws that discourage and prevent victims from reporting – such as those that criminalise aspects of sex work including clients, migration and homelessness – or that deny survivors access to essential sexual and reproductive health services, as well as gender-based and intersectional violence perpetrated by police.
  • This requires review and reform of such laws, policies, practices and by-laws as well as specific measures to promote inclusion, safety, well-being, remedy and reparations for particularly affected groups, including in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the increased powers of the police and requirement to present personal identity and vaccination documents increase the risk of policing of marginalised groups.
• Prioritises a social, community and survivor-centred approach over further criminalisation, invests in holistic social and support services, including mental health and sexual and reproductive health care, social protection and harm reduction, information provision, community interventions, and mechanisms that enable people to access services, remedies and stability, including residence status, without conditions or requirements to engage with law enforcement and the criminal legal system. Ensures that all women as well as people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions and sex characteristics fleeing violence are able to access safe, suitable and stable accommodation and other support services without furthering the cycle of abuse.
• Addresses harmful practices such as female genital mutilation; human trafficking; and non-consensual medical interventions such as forced abortion, forced contraception, forced sterilisation, intersex genital mutilation, forced gender reassignment, through this rights-based and intersectional feminist approach.
• Ensures safety and protection for people who do wish to engage with authorities and with the criminal legal system, protection from secondary victimisation, including sanctions, penalties and immigration enforcement, and ensures accessibility of the justice system and procedural accommodation for victims, including people with disabilities.
• Does not fall behind, and rather builds upon, existing European standards, including the Istanbul Convention and the Victims’ Rights Directive.-3-

Signed by: 

European/ international networks and organisations

• Amnesty International
• ASTRA Network
• Center for Reproductive Rights
• Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network
• Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice (Equinox)
• EU Civil Society Forum on HIV, TB and Hep
• Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA)
• European AIDS Treatment Group
• European Anti-Poverty Network
• European Association of Institutes for Vocational Training (EVBB)
• European Disability Forum
• European Federation of Organisations working with Homeless People (FEANTSA)
• European Liberals for Reform
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• European Sex Workers’ Rights Alliance (ESWA)
• FAAAT think & do tank
• Fair Trials
• GAMBE – supporting migrant women
• Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women
• Harm Reduction International
• HIV Justice Network
• International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN)
• La Strada International – European NGO Platform against trafficking in human beings
• Mama Cash
• Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII Europe)
• Red Umbrella Fund
• Regional Implementation Initiative on Preventing & Combating Human Trafficking
• Sex Workers’ Rights Advocacy Network (SWAN)
• TAMPEP- European Network for the Promotion of Health and Rights among Migrant Sex Workers
• TGEU – Transgender Europe
• The European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)

National level networks and organisations

• Ação Pela Identidade – Portugal
• ACCEPT Romania – Romania
• Act Up-Paris – France
• ADPARE – Romania
• Alma-TQ – Kazakhstan
• APOYO POSITIVO – Spain
• Asociación Por ti mujer – Spain
• Association for Support of Marginalized Workers STAR-STAR Skopje – North Macedonia
• Association HERA XXI, MA IPPF – Georgia
• Association of Hungarian Sex-Workers (SZEXE) – Hungary
• Association SKUC – Slovenia
• ASTRA-Anti trafficking action – Serbia
• Ban Ying e.V. – Germany
• BASIS-Projekt – Germany
• Bilitis Resource Center Foundation – Bulgaria
• Brazilian association of LGBTQIA+ (ABGLT) – Brazil
• Bundesverband Trans* (BVT*) – Germany
• CATNPUD – Catalan network of people who use drugs – Spain
• Çavaria – Belgium (Flanders)
• Center Women and Modern World – Azerbaijan
• CESI – Center for Education, Counselling and Research – Croatia
• CHOICE for Youth and Sexuality – The Netherlands
• Comitato per i Diritti Civili delle Prostitute – Italy
• Comite de Apoyo a las Trabajadoras del Sexo (CATS) – Spain
• Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras – Spain
• Deutsche Aidshilfe – Germany
• Deutscher Frauenrat/National Council of German Women’s Organizations – Germany
• Dharma & Martia – The United Kingdom
• Društvo Legebitra – Slovenia
• Društvo za pomoč in samopomoč brezdomcev Kralji ulice – Slovenia
• E-Romnja Association (The Association for Promoting Roma Women’s Rights) – Romania
• Espace P… ASBL – Belgium
• EUFORIA. Familias Trans-Aliadas – Spain
• Euphoria Trans – Italy
• European anti-poverty network Czech Republic – Czech Republic
• Fair Work – The Netherlands
• Family Planning Association of Moldova – Moldova
• Feminist Mobilizations – Bulgaria
• Fondazione LILA Milano – Italian League for Fighting AIDS – Italy
• Fossil Free Culture – The Netherlands
• Foundation Solidarity Works – Bulgaria
• Frauenhauskoordinierung e.V. – Germany
• Fundação Portuguesa “A Comunidade Contra a Sida” – Portugal
• Greek Forum of Refugees – Greece
• Greek Transgender Support Association (GTSA) – Greece
• Gruppo Trans APS – Italy
• Health and social development Foundation – Bulgaria
• Homosexuelle Initiative (HOSI) Wien – Austria
• HPLGBT – Ukraine
• Initiative Group LGBT “Revers” – Russia
• Internationale Vereinigung Intergeschlechtlicher Menschen – OII Germany e. V. – Germany
• KOK – German NGO Network against Trafficking in Human Beings – Germany
• LEFÖ – Counselling, Education and Support for Migrant Women – Austria
• Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany LSVD – Germany
• LGBTI+ Gozo – Malta
• Life Quality Improvement Organisation Flight – Croatia
• LILA Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro l’AIDS – Italia
• Lysistrada Fachstelle für Sexarbeit, Olten, CH – Switzerland
• Metzineres SCCL – Spain
• MIT (Movimento Identità Trans) – Italy
• Moluccan Council of Women (MVR) – The Netherlands
• Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland (MASI) – Ireland
• MozaiQ LGBT Association – Romania
• Mujeres Supervivientes de violencias de género – Spain
• Nacional Association of Travestis and Trans person from brazil – Brazil
• National Ugly Mugs (NUM) – The United Kingdom
• Nationale Armutskonferenz/ EAPN – Germany
• NGO AIDSi Tugikeskus – Estonia
• Österreichischer Frauenring (ÖFR) – Austria
• PION – Prostituertes interesseorganisasjon i Norge – Norway
• Positive Voice – Greece
• Pro-tukipiste ry – Finland
• RED AMINVI (RED DE APOYO A LA MUJER INMIGRANTE VICTIMA DE LA VIOLENCIA DE GENERO) – Spain
• Red Edition – Migrant sex worker group, Vienna Austria – Austria
• Red Umbrella Athens – Greece
• Red Umbrella Sweden – Sweden
• Right Side Human Rights Defender NGO – Armenia
• Rutgers – The Netherlands
• SeksWerkExpertise – The Netherlands
• Sex Work Polska – Poland
• Sex Workers Alliance Ireland – Ireland
• Sex worker Forum Austria – Austria
• SHOP (Stichting Hulp en Opvang Prostitutie en Mensenhandel) – The Nederlands
• Social Policy, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association – Turkey
• Stichting EqualA Foundation – The Netherlands
• Stichting Prostitutie Informatie Centrum – The Nederlands
• STRASS – Syndicat du Travail Sexuel – France
• TAMPEP Nederland – The Netherlands
• TransAkcija Institute – Slovenia
• Transfeminiinit ry – Transfeminina rf – Transfeminines NGO – Finland
• Transgender Infopunt – Belgium
• Transvanilla Transgender Association – Hungary
• TransX – Austrian Transgender Association – Austria
• Ugly Mugs Ireland – Ireland
• UMAR – União de Mulheres Alternativa e Resposta – Portugal
• Vatra Psycho-Social Center – Albania
• Vote for a Woman Foundation (Stem op een Vrouw) – The Nederlands
• WO=MEN Dutch Gender Platform – The Nederlands
• Women’s resource center,Armenia NGO – Armenia
• Zagreb Pride – Croatia
• И Г Опора ЛЮБВИ – Russia
• Российский Форум секс-работников – Russia

-1- Victoria Law: Against Carceral Feminism. 17.10.2014, Jacobin. Available: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/10/against-carceral-feminism/

-2- Towards Gender Justice Rethinking EU Gender Equality Policy From an Intersectional Perspective. Equinox- Initiative for Racial Justice, 2021

-3- The EU Victims’ Rights Directive refers to gender-based violence as “violence that is directed against a person because of that person’s gender, gender identity or gender expression or that affects a person of a particular gender disproportionately. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0029&from=en

© Jacob Lund – Adobe Stock

38 organisations denounce the ongoing harassment against KISA and call on the Cypriot authorities to reinstate their official registration as a non-governmental organisation (NGO)

19 February 2021

On 3 March, KISA, a leading non-governmental organisation fighting for equality in Cyprus, will have a hearing that has implications for their very survival.

In December 2020, the Cypriot Minister of Interior abruptly removed KISA, and many other civil society organisations, from the Register of Associations. He did so using his new, self-attributed powers to start a dissolution process for NGOs if certain regulatory requirements were not met within a two-month notice period. In KISA’s case, they informed the authorities of a delay in organising their general assembly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite KISA indicating that all formal requirements would be met within a short time period, and appealing against the Minister’s decision, they were nonetheless deleted from the Register of Associations.

This is just the latest move in a long campaign to discredit and silence independent voices in Cyprus, in particular KISA, and ultimately attack the foundations of democratic pluralism. The trend of shrinking civic space seems to be dangerously spreading all across the region. For example, in November 2019, Greece proposed worrying amendments to the Greek legislation on NGO registration engaged in activities related to asylum, migration, and social inclusion. On 27 December 2020, the Turkish Parliament approved legislation further restricting NGOs and civil society activities under the guise of countering terrorism.

On 3 March 2021, the Cypriot administrative court will review KISA’s appeal against the decision to remove the organisation from the Register of Associations, through an expedited procedure. If the removal of KISA from the register is confirmed and the procedure for dissolution completed, people in extreme situations of vulnerability will stop receiving crucial help, and Cypriot democracy will lose one of its leading independent voices.

KISA has in the meantime submitted to the Registrar of Associations all formal requirements of the Law, namely its audited accounts for 2019, the amended statutes and the names of the new Steering Committee, with their positions and contact details.

As KISA is fighting this decision before the national courts, civil society organisations from across Europe have raised their voices in solidarity. This is not the first attempt to silence the organisation: over its 22 years of existence, KISA has been the target of defamation campaigns, intimidation, and even criminal prosecutions against its Executive Director, Doros Polykarpou.

In order to promote a conducive environment for independent civil society and solidarity with migrants and refugees and remove restrictions to civil society’s space, the undersigned organisations call upon the following authorities to:

The Cypriot government and President of the Parliament to:

• Re-insert KISA in the Register of Associations;
• Put an end to the ongoing judicial harassment against KISA and its members.
• Repeal the Amendment 118 (I)/2020 of the 2017 Law on Associations and Foundations and Other Related Issues, which grants the Ministry of Interior of Cyprus executive powers to remove NGOs from the Register of Associations and prohibits un-registered NGOs from continuing their actions;
• Comply with international standards on the right to freedom of association and the protection of human rights defenders, and in particular the joint OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Association, the OSCE Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders , the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and the recommendations of the Council of Europe NGO Expert Group.

The European Union to:

• Condemn the ongoing judicial harassment against KISA;
• Call on the Cypriot authorities to respect and uphold the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, the rule of law principles, and the right to freedom of association;
• Monitor early signs of harrassment of individuals and organisations working with migrants, before it escalates into the criminalisation of human rights defenders and civil society organisations.

Undersigned organisations:

International and European organisations:

• Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
• EuroMed Rights
• European Civic Forum
• European Network Against Racism
• Fair Trials
• FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights, in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
• Front Line Defenders
• Institute of Race Relations
• International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
• La Strada International
• Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
• Statewatch
• World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

National organisations:

• All Included (the Netherlands)
• AMERA International (UK)
• Asociación Rumiñahui (Spain)
• Association for Integration and Migration (Czech Republic)
• Ban Ying e.V (Germany)
• Centre for Peace Studies (Croatia)
• Centre for Youths Integrated Development (UK)
• CLA Voice (Bulgaria)
• FairWork (The Netherlands)
• FAIRWORK Belgium (Belgium)
• Federación SOS Racismo (Spain)
• Greek Council for Refugees (Greece)
• Greek Helsinki Monitor (Greece)
• Human Rights League (Slovakia)
• İnsan Hakları Derneği / Human Rights Association (Turkey)
• INTEGRIM LAB (Belgium)
• Maisha e.v. – African women (Germany)
• Migrant Rights Centre Ireland (Ireland)
• Mujeres supervivientes de violencias de género (Spain)
• Network for Children’s Rights (Greece)
• Progress Lawyers Network (Belgium)
• SNAPAP CGATA Algerie (Algeria)
• Tamkeen for legal aid and human rights (Jordan)
• The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants (Israel)
• UTSOPI (Belgium)

Amendment 118 (I)/2020 of the 2017 Law on Associations and Foundations and Other Related Issues

http://www.migreurop.org/article3024.html?lang=en; https://www.omct.org/en/resources/urgent-interventions/cyprus-deregistration-of-the-ngo-kisa; https://twitter.com/PICUM_post/status/1351516834596585472

https://kisa.org.cy/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Report-on-KISA-Attacks-EN-21122020.pdf

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe; Guidelines on Protecting NGO work in Support of refugees and other migrants; Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe; Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2086 (2016) ““How can inappropriate restrictions on NGO activities in Europe be prevented?”Cover image: Adobe Stock – Bits and Splits