With temporary protection set to expire on 4 March 2025, EU leadership is urgently needed to ensure millions of people displaced from Ukraine have continued access to rights and inclusion in Europe. As 131 civil society organisations, we call on the EU to propose timely, coordinated, collective and future-proof options for the transition out of temporary protection. Without a common European approach, millions of people risk becoming undocumented and losing access to rights, protection and other essential services, national authorities will likely be overwhelmed, and much of the inclusion work of governments, municipalities, NGOs and volunteers risks being undone. 

Act now to prevent hardship later 

With less than one year of protection remaining, people are now left with the practical and emotional impacts of an uncertain future. Some face the prospect of registering children for school without knowing if they can complete the school year, others struggle to secure work or housing as their permits expire in March 2025. This uncertainty may trigger premature returns to Ukraine – where many people lack access to essential services and face daily safety risks. It could also result in mass applications for asylum and other residence permits, leading to backlogs and delayed access to protection. 

• The EU must ACT NOW to plan and coordinate the transition out of temporary protection, in order to prevent unsafe returns, loss of residence status, or unnecessary pressure on migration systems, and to allow authorities, civil society and displaced people to prepare.
• Displaced people must be informed and consulted on the options available to them.

Pursue a united EU response 

If temporary protection ends without a collective European response, access to rights for people who fled Ukraine may vary drastically across Member States. Migration ministers noted in January that “adopting 27 different national legislations on this topic would be counterproductive, result in secondary movements, and cause uncertainty.” Without common standards, there is a risk of a race to the bottom on rights and services. In many countries there are no or few appropriate permits available. This could particularly disadvantage individuals in vulnerable situations – such as stateless persons, refugees and asylum seekers who fled Ukraine, Roma, people with care-giving responsibilities, and older people – who risk losing their current access to rights, being redirected to ill-fitting residence permits, or becoming undocumented.

• The EU should prioritise a COMMON and COORDINATED approach to prevent people from becoming undocumented or switching to permits with fewer or different rights.
• In parallel, Member states should ensure access to residence permits on various grounds, including asylum, work, the principle of non-refoulement and private life.

Look to the future

If the above measures cannot be taken in time, a further extension of temporary protection – as is currently under discussion – would be a vital stopgap to ensure continued access to residence status and rights. However, piecemeal, yearly extensions of temporary protection risk perpetuating a state of insecurity that hinders displaced people from planning for their future, whether in Ukraine or in the EU. The EU has a range of options for more durable solutions that should be explored in parallel to any extension. 

• The EU should pursue FUTURE-PROOF solutions that offer at least the same standard of rights as temporary protection, and which protect at least the same groups of people.
• Solutions should be developed that can benefit other temporary protection holders in future. 
• These solutions should be informed by the needs and experiences of displaced people as well as civil society and other stakeholders assisting them.

List of signatories:

European and international organisations

• ADRA Europe
• AMERA International
• Amnesty International
• Asociatia Sprijin Pentru Comunitatea Ucraineana
• CARE International
• Caritas Europa
• Child Circle
• Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
• Danish Refugee Council
• EASPD
• EuroMed Rights
• European Evangelical Alliance
• European Lawyers in Lesvos (ELIL)
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• European Network on Statelessness
• HIAS Europe
• Housing Europe
• International Rescue Committee
• La Strada International
• Médecins Du Monde – International Network
• Methoria
• Migration Policy Group
• Missing Children Europe
• OpenEmbassy
• Oxfam
• PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants
• Social Platform
• SOLIDAR
• SOS Children’s Villages International
• The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)
• Vitsche e.V.

National organisations

• Aditus Foundation
• ADPARE
• ANAIS Association
• ARSIS Association for the Social Support of Youth
• Association for Integration and Migration, SIMI
• Association for intercultural work
• Association for Legal Intervention
• Better Days Greece
• CARUSEL Romania
• Centre for Peace Studies
• Centrum pro integraci cizinců, o. p. s.
• Clare Immigrant Support Centre
• CoMensha
• Community Law & Mediation
• Consortium of Migrants Assisting Organizations in the Czech Republic
• CSO “La Strada-Ukraine”
• Defence for Children – The Netherlands
• Diakonie ČCE-SCPS
• Doras
• Dutch Council for Refugees
• Equilibrium NGO (Громадська організація “Точка рівноваги”)
• EQUITA
• FairWork
• Feminist Lodge
• Finnish Refugee Advice Centre
• Forum réfugiés
• Fundatia Inima de Copil
• Foundation for Access to Rights – FAR
• Foundation for Migrants “Dobry Start” in Memory of A. G. Farah
• Fundacja HelpNowHub ГО Позитивні жінки Херсон
• Fundacja Imago
• Greek Council for Refugees
• Greek Forum of Migrants
• Helping Irish Hosts
• Humanitarna organizacija Jesuit Refugee Service
• Immigrant Council of Ireland
• Initiative for Social Change ARSIS
• Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Malta
• Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Romania
• Jewish Representative Council of Ireland (Ukraine Support Programme)
• Kalyna – Komunitní uprchlické centrum, z. s.
• Kerk in Actie
• KISA (Cyprus)
• Kopin (Malta)
• Kuchnia Konfliktu / Conflict Kitchen
• LGBT Ireland
• MigAid (A Segítők Egyesület)
• Migrant Rights Centre Ireland
• Migration Consortium
• Most pro o.p.s.
• Movimiento por la Paz (MPDL)
• NewBees
• NGO Bilozerka center for regional development (Ukraine)
• NGO Zhiva-Ya
• Nordic Ukraine Forum
• OPORA Foundation
• ORBIT
• Organization for Aid to Refugees (OPU)
• PA International Center “La Strada” Moldova
• PATCHWORK Association for Immigrant Families of Persons with Disabilities
• People in Need
• Right to Protection
• SOFT tulip Foundation
• SolidarityNow
• Spark 15
• Stichting voor Vluchtelingen-Studenten UAF
• Swedish Refugee Law Center
• The Federation of Nongovernmental Organisations for Social Services – FONSS
• The Human Rights League
• The Open Doors Initiative
• United For Changes
• Vatra Psycho Social Center
• WA Sphere (ГО “ХЖО “Сфера”)
• Willi Eichler Akademie e.V.
• Women in Media NGO
• ГО “Зв’язок ”
• ГС “ІМД “Відкрите суспільство”
• Жіночий Центр “Підтримка, Захист та Трубота”
• Когорта
• Національна Рада Жінок України
• Хмельницька обласна ГО Подільський центр “Гендерна рада”
• Школа Рівних Можливостей

Local and community groups

• ABBA Student Association
• BIPoC Ukraine and friends in Germany
• Blue Door Education
• Cairde
• Chief Rabbinate of Poland
• Cultur Migrant Centre
• CUSBU: CommUnities Support for BIPoC Refugees from Ukraine
• Diakonie ČCE – středisko Západní Čechy
• Jewish Community of Łódź
• Migrant Women Associations Malta
• Migrationsrat Berlin e.V.
• NestingPlay
• Romodrom, o.p.s.
• South Kerry Development Partnership CLG
• Waterford Area Partnership
• Women for Integration and Wellbeing
• Yoga and Sport with Refugees

Joint Statement on the Revision of the EU Victims’ Rights Directive

The European Union (EU) has long recognised the need to protect all victims of crime without discrimination.

The EU Victim Rights Directive (VRD)¹ articulates this commitment in law, stating that victim rights cannot be denied based on residence status (Article 1). It applies to criminal offences within the Union and extraterritorial offences, including those occurring in immigration detention and at the EU’s borders.² The EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights (2020-2025) further recognises undocumented people among the categories of “vulnerable victims”.³

However, a paradox emerges when victim rights are juxtaposed with the EU’s migration policy: immigration control is prioritised over a person’s rights and needs.

Being undocumented, or having an insecure residence status, makes people susceptible to mistreatment, abuse and severe forms of exploitation, including human trafficking and forced labour.

When migration status intersects with other forms of discrimination, including gender, ethnic or social origin, sexual orientation or gender identity and disability, abuse is exacerbated. The abuse may also result from actions from public authorities (e.g. police, border guards, staff in immigration detention centres).

Migrants with irregular status face potential abuse not only when arriving at the EU’s borders (e.g. pushbacks⁴) but also when living within the EU. This abuse may occur in the workplace, in personal relationships, but also in other settings (e.g. immigration detention).

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum⁵, coupled with other initiatives seeking to further criminalise migration across the EU⁶, raises alarming concerns for the future.⁷ Far from upholding justice and protection, these policies are expected to escalate human rights violations and perpetuate discriminatory practices within the very structures meant to safeguard all individuals.

The EU must reinforce its legal tools to ensure universal access to justice, unconditional support, and protection without discrimination.

The ongoing revision of the VRD⁸ is a pivotal opportunity to strengthen the rights and protection granted to victims, irrespective of their residence status.

However, there exist significant obstacles and ambiguities in the proposed revision, potentially obstructing the full realisation of rights for marginalised victims of crime, in particular those with an insecure residence status or that are undocumented victims.⁹

In response, the undersigned organisations call on the EU negotiators to incorporate the following recommendations:

Safe reporting of crime

Undocumented victims rarely report abuse, as they fear engaging with authorities, due to the risk of detention and deportation: this means that they are not identified as victims of crime and do not receive the support and protection they need and are entitled to.¹⁰ This distrust is compounded by the increased policing and surveillance of migrant and marginalised communities, worsening feelings of insecurity and concerns about discriminatory profiling.

Safe reporting mechanisms for undocumented migrants are generally lacking all over Europe. They are almost non-existent for victims of abuse in immigration detention, with only few reports ever reaching the criminal justice system.¹¹

It is essential that Article 5a(1) of the revised VRD requires Member States to offer a variety of complaints/reporting mechanisms, accessible free of charge¹², to cater to the multiple needs and circumstances of victims, including those in immigration detention. This should include third-party reporting, crucial for victims that do not trust law enforcement.¹³

Article 5a(2) should also create safe environments for victims, third parties, and people who suspect that criminal offences have been committed, or are expected, to be able to report a crime without any reprisals, including in relation to their migration status. This concept of non-punishment, embedded in the EU’s Anti-Trafficking Directive¹⁴ and Anti-Trafficking Strategy¹⁵, should be streamlined across the EU VRD, notably under Article 5a.

Moreover, we call on negotiators to ensure safe and confidential mechanisms in place for criminal offences committed by public officials (e.g. violence by police and border guards) to be reported to the appropriate independent competent authorities.

Data protection

Protection of personal data is necessary to ensure that safe reporting is a reality for every victim of crime, regardless of residence status. It is a precondition to the enjoyment of rights under the Victims’ Directive, essential to promoting trust in public institutions, and the basic democratic principle that everyone is equally protected under the law.

While welcoming the Commission’s effort to limit personal information transfer to migration authorities when crimes are reported, this safeguard should not apply only temporarily until the first individual needs assessment has been completed.

We urge negotiators to ensure under Article 5a(5) of the revised VRD that a victim’s residence status is not shared with migration authorities. It is essential that the Victim Rights Directive introduces this strong safeguard, particularly given failure of EU negotiators to include it in the new Directive on violence against women and domestic violence despite the EU’s¹⁶ obligations to uphold privacy rights laid out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).¹⁷

Unconditional access to support services

Victims of crime should have access to available support services, regardless of their residence status or willingness to participate in criminal proceedings. Yet, for many undocumented victims of crime, justice and support remain elusory.

We support Article 9(1)(c) of the revised VRD, which would ensure access to psychological support. We further support targeted and integrated support for victims with specific needs, as articulated under amended Article 9(3)(b). These services should include comprehensive medical care services, including sexual and reproductive healthcare services.

Shelters are also an essential service in offering safety and refuge, free from harm. However, there are serious shortages of shelters across the EU and undocumented migrants, in particular women, may face even greater hurdles in accessing these services. It follows that the revised VRD should ensure access to shelters and other appropriate forms of accommodation.

Although not formally considered a victim support service, legal aid is also a precondition for victims to assert their rights effectively and promptly. We recommend that Article 13¹⁸ is revised to ensure victims have access to free legal aid.

All support should be provided without delay. We thus further support Article 8(2) of the revised VRD which notably requires that victims are contacted by the relevant generic or specialised support services.

Undocumented children

Children are particularly vulnerable and require adequate responses. We support Article 9a of the revised VRD making available support services for children who are victims of crime in dedicated, safe and child-friendly locations, and Article 9a(2) which sets out the list of services which this should include.

Children in migration are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, violence, crime, and of going missing, because of their social isolation, being undocumented and/or having a precarious residence status. Having specialists on their side to understand and navigate the legal and administrative aspects, including residence procedures if applicable, is both part of the government’s duty of care and basic children’s safeguards. We therefore recommend that Article 9a(2) also includes administrative and legal (free and specialised) support under the list of services.

Individual assessment of victims to identify specific support and protection needs

We generally welcome the proposal to strengthen the individual needs assessments as articulated in Article 22 of the revised VRD, including proposals to ensure the individual needs assessment is carried out on a regular basis and lasts as long as necessary based on each victim’s needs.

We are concerned that the current draft suggests that only police authorities will be relied on to carry out a single support needs assessment to determine whether victims are referred to support services. Requiring police authorities, rather than organisations specialised in supporting victims, to carry out such assessments not only risks overburdening them but may result in inadequate assessments. We suggest including language to engage generic and specialised support services in this assessment.

It is crucial to ensure that the official duration of the assessment does not violate fundamental rights to assistance, support, and information, nor be linked to return procedures.

Additionally, we urge negotiators to include residence status and nationality among the personal characteristics of the victim that should be taken into account in the needs assessment (Article 22(2)(a)) and that undocumented and stateless victims should be considered as a group that would require particular attention (Article 22(3)).

Immigration detention

Immigration detention is the deprivation of liberty for reasons related to a person’s residence status.¹⁹ When crimes occur in detention centres people are already placed in a situation of vulnerability and dependency.²⁰

Article 26a should therefore require member states to clearly set out the responsibilities of detention staff and detention administration in securing the rights of victims of violent crimes, as well as ensuring that victims in detention receive access to free legal support.

Residence permits

One important way to ensure undocumented victims can access justice and support, and prevent further victimisation, is to issue residence permits to victims.²¹ This solution already exists in different EU member states, which have permits for individuals who have been trafficked, who have been victims of racist violence, domestic violence and labour exploitation.²² Moreover, several EU directives make provision for residence permits for certain victims of crime.²³ In fact, the Return Directive leaves member states free to grant a residence permit “at any moment” to someone in an irregular situation for compassionate or humanitarian reasons.²⁴

We urge negotiators to ensure the revised VRD includes a provision on the issuance of residence permits on personal or humanitarian grounds, not requiring their cooperation in criminal proceedings, and not conditioned on the start or outcome of criminal procedures.

Compensation

Compensation serves as a crucial tool for restorative and preventive purposes, particularly for victims who have endured physical, mental, economic, or sexual abuse. We support proposed revisions of the VRD under Article 16 seeking to enhance access to compensation by strengthening victims’ rights during criminal proceedings, making state payment of the offender’s compensation binding and timely, with the possibility for the state to recover it from the offender later.

We urge negotiators to ensure under Article 16 that a lack of residence status does not impede the right to compensation. It follows that undocumented victims should not be denied compensation based on their irregular immigration status but are instead encouraged and (legally) supported to introduce their claims for remedies and given the possibility to participate in legal proceedings.

Now, more than ever, the EU must stand firmly against discrimination, ensuring justice, support, and protection for all victims of crime.

We stand ready to collaborate with the EU institutions to create a future where victim rights are inviolable, no matter who they are or whatever residence status they have.

Signatories

International and European organisations

• Access Now
• Amnesty International
• Centre for Youths Integrated Development
• Dynamo International
• European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)
• European Digital Rights Network (EDRi)
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• European Network Against Statelessness (ENS)
• European Sex Workers Rights Alliance (ESWA)
• Global Alliance against Traffic in Women (GAATW)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN)
• La Strada International – European NGO Platform Against Trafficking in Human Beings
• Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
• Methoria
• Missing Children Europe
• Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
• Quaker Council for European Affairs
• Revibra Europe
• Social Platform
• Transgender Europe (TGEU)
• The Africa Human Trafficking Taskforce (AHTTF)
• The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)
• The Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) Network
• Victim Support Europe

National organisations

• ADPARE, Romania
• Andalucia Acoge, Spain
• Animus Association Foundation, Bulgaria
• ARSIS Association for the Social Support of Youth, Greece
• Association for Integration and Migration, SIMI, Czech Republic
• Asociacion en Prevencion y Asistencia de la Violencia (APAV), Spain
• ASTRA-Anti trafficking action, Serbia
• Ban Ying, Germany
• CoMensha, Netherlands
• CSC ACV Brussels, Belgium
• Fairwork, Belgium
• FairWork, Netherlands
• Fundación Cepaim, Spain
• Fundación de Solidaridad Amaranta, Spain
• Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), Greece
• Group 484, Serbia
• HIAS Greece, Greece
• HopeNow, Denmark
• KOK – German NGO Network against Trafficking in Human Beings, Germany
• Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS), United Kingdom
• Migrant Voice, United Kingdom
• Mission d’intervention et de sensibilisation contre la traite des êtres humains (Mist), France
• On the Road Società Cooperativa Sociale, Italy
• Open Gate/La Strada, North Macedonia
• PA International Center “LA STRADA” Moldova, Republic of Moldova
• Payoke, Belgium
• Plateforme Sans-Papiers Suisse, Switzerland
• Red Acoge, Spain
• Sans-Papiers Anlaufstelle Zürich SPAZ, Switzerland
• Siempre, Belgium
• S.P.E.A.K, Netherlands
• Stichting LOS, Netherlands
• Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej (Association for Legal Intervention), Poland
• UEE-Union des étudiants exiles, France
• UTSOPI, Belgium
• Vatra psycho social center, Albania

Total signatories: 60

Contact

• Louise Bonneau, PICUM (louise.bonneau@picum.org)
• Suzanne Hoff, La Strada International (sh@lastradainternational.org)

---

Footnotes

1. Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA ↩︎
2. See PICUM, 2015, Guide to the EU Victims’ Directive: advancing access to protection, services and justice for undocumented migrants ↩︎
3. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025) ↩︎
4. In the absence of an internationally agreed upon definition of “pushbacks”, the Special Rapporteur on Migrants has described “pushbacks” as “various measures taken by States which result in migrants, including asylum seekers, being summarily forced back to the country from where they attempted to cross or have crossed an international border without access to international protection or asylum procedures or denied of any individual assessment on their protection needs which may lead to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement.” ↩︎
5. For a brief assessment, see the editorial of PICUM’s December 2023 newsletter ‘EU Migration Pact: a historic deal against human rights’. ↩︎
6. On 28 November 2023, the European Commission announced a series of initiatives to ‘Counter migrant smuggling’, including a revision of the Facilitators Package. ↩︎
7. Prior to the final negotiations of the EU Pact on Migration, PICUM joined 18 other leading human rights organisations in calling on EU lawmakers to reject this Pact and submitted an open letter calling out the human rights risks in the Migration Pact. ↩︎
8. European Commission, 2023, Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA ↩︎
9. PICUM, 2023, First assessment of the proposed revisions to the Victim Rights Directive ↩︎
10. PICUM, 2021, Preventing harm, promoting rights: achieving safety, protection and justice for people with insecure residence status in the EU; PICUM, 2022, Unconditional access to services for undocumented victims of crime ↩︎
11. Fair Trials, 2019, Rights behind bars Access to justice for victims of violent crime suffered in pre-trial or immigration detention ↩︎
12. Greece’s on-going revision of the draft law amending the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure includes provisions which would see victims have to pay a fee in order to report a crime and to make appeals. ↩︎
13. Fundamental Rights Agency, 2023, Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and protection ↩︎
14. Directive 2011 combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA ↩︎
15. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on the EU strategy on combatting trafficking in human beings 2021- 2025, COM/2021/171 final ↩︎
16. In the political agreement reached on 6 February 2024 on the new Directive on violence against women and domestic violence, negotiators failed to sufficiently protect undocumented women from immigration enforcement should they report violence and abuse to police. ↩︎
17. PICUM, 2020, Data protection and the firewall: advancing safe reporting for people in an irregular situation ↩︎
18. The provisions in article 13 (not opened for revision by the European Commission) are insufficient, as they do not include administrative support and limit legal aid to victims who are a party in criminal proceedings. ↩︎
19. PICUM, 2022, Immigration detention and de facto detention: What does the law say? ↩︎
20. Fair Trials, 2019, Rights behind bars Access to justice for victims of violent crime suffered in pre-trial or immigration detention ↩︎
21. PICUM, 2022, Unconditional access to services for undocumented victims of crime ↩︎
22. PICUM, 2020, Insecure Justice? Residence Permits for victims of crime in Europe; PICUM, 2022, Labour migration policies Case study series Finland ↩︎
23. PICUM, 2020, Insecure Justice? Residence Permits for victims of crime in Europe ↩︎
24. 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 ↩︎

We, the undersigned organisations, express our deep concern regarding the continuing and escalating harassment and attacks against KISA, a leading non-governmental organisation fighting for human rights and equality for all in Cyprus. KISA’s work promotes a society free of racism and discrimination, also by defending the rights of migrants, refugees and victims of human trafficking.

During the early morning of 5 January 2024, KISA experienced a targeted bombing attack. An explosive device was planted outside its offices, destroying all windows and causing extensive damage to the photocopier, computers, and part of the organisation’s archives. The organisation suspects that the bombing was carried out by individuals within racist and nationalist circles, considering that KISA and its members have been the object of repeated threats. Despite the seriousness of the bombing, the Cypriot authorities have yet to issue an official response. While the police are investigating, they did not issue an information note, contrary to the standard practice in case of such incidents.

The lack of official and public communication regarding the assault and the investigation, and support for KISA and civil society organisations in general, indicates a worrying disregard by the authorities. Indeed, we are deeply concerned about the reported failure of the authorities and police to take any steps to protect KISA as well as the inadequate response to the numerous threats, and actual acts of physical and verbal violence, harassment and smear campaigns formally reported to the police.

Furthermore, this attack is not an isolated incident, but the result of a long campaign to discredit and silence independent voices in Cyprus, in particular KISA. In 2021, 38 organisations denounced the ongoing harassment against KISA, and the restrictions imposed on the organisation including its de-registration as a non-governmental organisation. Although KISA has since then a new formal legal status as a non-profit company and the deregistration is under appeal, the government – in particular the Ministry of the Interior – continues to block several of KISA’s essential activities in support of migrants and refugees.

The undersigned organisations are also deeply concerned that KISA members and volunteers, in particular former Executive Director Doros Polykarpou, continue to face criminalisation that appears to be linked with their activities as human rights defenders. Mr. Polykarpou was convicted on 21 December 2023 and, just ten days after the bomb attack, sentenced to pay a fine for supposedly ‘interfering’ with police work in 2019, after exercising his right to observe a police officer’s interaction with a young motorcyclist (a minor, stopped for possible traffic offences) and to provide basic information to the child regarding his rights.

Another trial related to the criminalisation of Mr Polykarpou in his work as a human rights defender is on-going and concerns a visit to the Pournara reception centre to investigate claims of inhuman conditions by unaccompanied children. Mr Polykarpou reported his physical assault by private security guards in March 2022 but was later prosecuted for various charges (case 16767/22). These cases follow decades of criminal charges levelled against Mr Polykarpou which according to KISA are part of a pattern of cases aiming to intimidate, discredit and interfere with the work of KISA as a human rights defender. Before this latest ruling, Mr Polykarpou had been acquitted in all legal cases against him.

Our concerns extend beyond the immediate impact on KISA to encompass broader issues of civic space in Cyprus. In particular, the rise of anti-migrant, racist rhetoric and racist violence in the country is alarming and requires attention and action to change.

In order to promote an enabling environment for independent civil society and solidarity with migrants and refugees and remove restrictions to civil society’s space in Cyprus and in Europe as a whole, the undersigned organisations call upon the following authorities to:

The Cypriot authorities:

• Publicly condemn the recent bombing attack against KISA, and ensure a thorough, independent, impartial and prompt investigation into and appropriate response to the January 5th bombing including the prioritizing of the hypothesis that the attack was related to KISA’s human rights and anti-racist work.
• Ensure a thorough, independent, impartial and prompt investigation of previous complaints presented by KISA and its members regarding harassment, attacks, smear campaigns, and threats. Implement effective measures to ensure the safety of KISA’s employees, members and service users.
• Protect KISA’s freedom of association and end the criminalisation of KISA and its members.
• Take steps to enable KISA to continue its activities, including granting KISA full access to reception and detention centres where migrants and refugees are held.
• Take concrete measures to end any legislation or policy which encourages racism, hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants, refugees and racialised people in Cyprus. Take action to combat extremist narratives and racist rhetoric in the media and public discourse.
• Comply with international and regional 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:

• Condemn the attack that took place on 5 January 2024 and other pending complaints, and call on the Cypriot authorities to ensure an adequate response and to end the ongoing harassment against KISA and interference in its work, in line with the 2023 European Commission recommendations on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making processes and the Council conclusions on civic space.
• Closely monitor the situation in Cyprus, especially the climate of violence and xenophobia, addressing the hostility against migrants, refugees and anti-racist and migrants’ rights organisations.
• Address these attacks against human rights defenders and their organisations in the Annual Rule of Law Cycle and make a targeted recommendation to Cyprus to ensure a safe space for rights defenders and put an end to the ongoing attacks and to the restrictions on KISA’s freedom of association and the criminalisation of KISA and its members.
• 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.
• Develop an early warning system to detect harassment of individuals and civic organizations, including those advocating for migrant rights and racial justice, to prevent their criminalisation. This system should prompt swift EU-level responses such as recommendations, dialogue, sanctions, and emergency funding. Additionally, collaborate with civil society to establish a ‘Rapid Response System’ (building on the existing EU’s external human rights defenders mechanism) offering helplines, legal aid, and temporary relocation to protect civil society since the first signs of attacks.

Signatories:

International and European organisations:

• AMERA International
• Amnesty International
• Borderline-europe Human Rights without Borders
• European Civic Forum
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• EuroMed Rights
• FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
• Front Line Defenders
• Greek Helsinki Monitor
• Human Rights Cities Network            
• Institute of Race Relations
• International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
• La Strada International
• Migreurop
• Minority Rights Group
• Netherlands Helsinki Committee
• Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
• PRO ASYL
• Protection International
• Statewatch
• World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

National organisations:

• Aditus Foundation, Malta
• ASGI, Italy
• Association Tunisienne des Femmes Démocrates (ATFD), Tunisia
• Associazione Ricreativa e Culturale Italiana (ARCI), Italy
• Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHRS), Egypt
• Center for Peace Studies, Croatia
• Center for Public Innovation, Romania
• Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies (DCHRS), Syria
• Finnish League for Human Rights, Finland
• Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX), UK
• Gentium, Spain
• Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), Greece
• Hellenic League for Human Rights, Greece
• Human Rights Association (IHD), Turkey
• Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hungary
• Irídia, Spain
• Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Ireland
• Legal Center for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment – PIC, Slovenia
• Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), France
• Network for Children’s Rights, Greece
• PA International Center “LA STRADA”, Moldova
• Tamkeen for Legal Aid and Human Rights, Jordan
• Vatra Psycho Social Center, Albania

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