Electoral gains for European far-right parties risk leading to even more human rights violations at the EU’s borders and across Europe, against migrants and racialised people.

The leading European People’s Party look set to continue an approach which has undermined human rights and international law, cost lives, and repeatedly failed in its stated aims. Meanwhile, an increased presence in the European Parliament from far-right groups like the European Conservatives and Reformists and Identity and Democracy will create a powerful lobbying presence for the even more hostile migration policies presented in their manifestos. The main risks include:

A foreign policy that threatens refugee and migrant lives while undermining European security

• The EU looks set to strike more deals with third countries to prevent people from reaching Europe; increasingly also tied to development aid and resource access, thereby distorting European foreign policy aims.
• The EU already struck such deals with Turkey in 2015, with Libya in 2017, with Tunisia in 2023, and with Egypt and Lebanon this very year. 
• This model of pouring millions into third countries, including authoritarian regimes, so they keep people out of Europe, has been proven harmful and lethal time and again – most notably through EU assistance to the Libyan “Coast Guard.” 
• A recent media investigation has revealed how EU funds channelled through these deals are being used by third countries to round up Black migrants across North Africa and dump them in the desert with no aid. The investigation reveals that such operations had been known in Brussels for years.

A border policy that undermines human rights in Europe and paves the way for surveillance and overreach in policing. 

• The EPP promised to triple Frontex staff and increase the agency’s budget and powers (it is already the EU’s largest.) This is despite little evidence of institutional change since the agency was accused of serious rights violations by the EU anti-corruption watchdog OLAF, and found complicit in human rights violations in the Mediterranean by international NGO Human Rights Watch. 
• Former Frontex Director Fabrice Leggeri, who resigned after allegations of misconduct from EU anti-fraud agency OLAF, has been elected as an MEP for French far-right party National Rally.
• This follows the sweeping package of rights infringements contained within the New Pact on Migration and Asylum agreed earlier this year.

Increasing deportations to danger

• Right-wing parties across Europe are looking at ramping up deportations of people seeking asylum to supposedly “safe” third countries for the processing of their asylum claim, and for hosting those who would be granted asylum. This would mean more agreements like the UK-Rwanda deal, which has been much criticised by the UN and national institutions and civil society for violating international law and exposing people to abuse and human rights violations. And it would validate and generalise agreements like the one between Italy and Albania, which would see Italy transfer people rescued at sea to the Balkan country with no guarantees against abuses in the new detention centres.

A full overview of what EU parties’ manifestos say about migration can be found here.

On 29 May, international and Swedish NGOs, trade unions, academics and faith-based organisations will be heard in the Swedish Parliament about the government’s proposal to oblige public sector workers to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement and/or police.

The proposal was included in the coalition programme of the government in 2022, (the Tidö Agreement, p.33) and is currently being studied in a public inquiry before concrete legislation is tabled.

The proposal has been heavily and widely criticised by a number of actors, including university teachers, welfare professionals, health care workers, teachers, municipal workers and library staff.

All denounce that mandatory reporting would lead to discrimination and stigmatisation, and fuel growing racism. Many undocumented children would no longer be able to attend school, while undocumented patients would find it difficult to access health care. Teachers, doctors and other public workers would have to act as border guards and compromise their professional independence and integrity.

The proposal would also have a detrimental effect on access to justice and protection for undocumented victims of crime and is likely to further prevent such victims and witnesses from reporting abuse to the police or agreeing to give evidence in criminal proceedings.

The Swedish government also instructed (p.16) the public investigator to consider “consequences” for those who do not comply with the obligation to report.

Over 4000 health care workers already pledged to commit civil disobedience and refuse to report their patients should the measure be implemented in the healthcare sector. Several directors of Swedish regional health care authorities voiced criticism towards the proposal.

The Swedish Teachers’ Council on Professional Ethics also strongly criticised the proposal and encouraged teachers to commit civil disobedience should the proposal become law. Nine out of ten librarians contest the proposal.

The Tidö agreement foresees to investigate the possibility of introducing limited exemptions from the obligation to denounce undocumented people, without promising that such exemptions would later be applied. But no exemption, whatever its extent, can mitigate the harm of this proposal: any reporting obligation is harmful and discriminatory, and should be rejected.

The results of the public inquiry should be made public by 30 September 2024.

QUOTES:

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants:

“This proposal is utterly inhumane. This is part of a growing trend that criminalises solidarity with undocumented people across Europe, which exacerbates their marginalisation and segregation. Everywhere where obligations to denounce undocumented people have been applied, the result has been more discrimination, suffering and fear. Clear safeguards are urgently needed against data sharing between public services and immigration authorities. The Swedish government should withdraw this proposal and ensure all people can access public services safely, without risking detention and deportation”.

Jacob Lind, Postdoctoral researcher in international migration at Malmö University:

“This proposal is a paradigm shift in the position of human rights in Sweden, a country that for a long time has been perceived by others as a role model on the international stage when it comes to promoting human rights.”

Hannah Laustiola, Executive Director of Doctors of the World Sweden:

“The proposal of a duty to report irregular migrants in Sweden is not only counter-productive, but also seriously harmful for individuals, the professionals bound by such a duty, as well as for society at large. With over 30 years of experience in working with irregular migrants, Doctors of the World Sweden can safely conclude that such a law would lead to even more people refraining from seeking health care, resulting in worsened health conditions at best, and premature death at worst.”

Anna Troberg, Chair of cultural sector trade union DIK:

“A vast majority — more than nine out of ten — of Swedish librarians are strongly opposed to reporting undocumented migrants to the police, and rightly so. They are librarians, not border patrol. Many say they would rather lose their jobs than report those in need. If the Swedish government advances this law, the librarians will come out on the right side of history. Ultimately, this is a question of trust, humanity and democracy.”

Heike Erkers, Chair of the Union for Social Sciences, ASSR:

“This measure would be disastrous not least for social services. We need to ensure that social services continue to be a safe space for all in our country to ensure that people in need will get help and support.”

It’s also about the potential breach of confidentiality and erosion of trust to society that our members are working so hard to ensure. This potential law would result in a growing number of people hiding and being exploited in appalling conditions.”

Bishop Andreas Holmberg, Church of Sweden, Stockholm diocese:

“I share a concern with many within the Church of Sweden, not least among my deacon sisters and brothers, about how a reporting obligation can affect the vulnerable people we meet. We are really concerned that our close cooperation with the public sector and civil society may be obstructed if a reporting obligation becomes a reality. I am particularly concerned about how such a law will affect children who are already living in great vulnerability.”

MEP Malin Björk, Swedish Left Party:

“Forcing public servants to denounce undocumented migrants to the police would be a breach of the Convention of the Human Rights, the Convention of the Rights of Children and the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The current Swedish government depends on extreme right wing party Sweden Democrats, which would like to make it mandatory for all citizens to denounce undocumented persons. This kind of law has no place in modern, democratic societies”.

The EU Council has adopted changes to the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive which fail to address root causes of trafficking and fail to protect and empower trafficked people. 

Lilana Keith, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “The revision of the Anti-trafficking Directive is a wasted opportunity to make a difference for trafficked people. The changes don’t address the barriers to safe reporting, remedy and compensation, they don’t improve access to residence permits. The focus was narrowly on doubling down on a criminalisation approach that’s ineffective and actually raises concerns for victims and those at risk.” 

One of the main changes is that the revised Directive obliges member states to criminalise the knowing use of services of trafficked people, when this was previously optional. This is despite the lack of evidence that this measure is effective in tackling trafficking or strengthening the rights of victims. Currently two-thirds of EU member states already have such a provision, and prosecutions and convictions are rare. On the contrary, further criminalisation will likely harm the rights of sex workers and those who are trafficked and exploited in the sector.  

Sex workers already face a multitude of harms when their clients are criminalised and when targeted by anti-trafficking actions. These risk being exacerbated by criminalising the knowing use of services of trafficked people, due to lack of understanding, fear among clients and discriminatory policing.  

Such measures will likely weaken efforts to enhance identification of trafficked people and their referral to support services, including by clients. Rather than focusing on identifying victims of trafficking, resources will be directed to identifying people who have “knowingly used” the services. Victims can be worse off too, being treated primarily as “witnesses” to an offence and having to testify against the users of their services, rather than victims of trafficking entitled to protection and support. 

The new Directive does introduce the requirement to let trafficked children report abuse in a safe and confidential way, but it fails to extend this crucial provision to adults. Fear of immigration enforcement is one of the major reasons preventing people experiencing abuse from contacting authorities and receiving the protection and services they are due. 

The final text also no longer requires member states to establish independent national Rapporteurs, which are important institutions to monitor human trafficking trends and policy responses.  

The only really positive improvement is that the revised Directive says it must be possible for member states not to punish trafficked people for administrative offences (in addition to criminal offences) they might have committed while trafficked. This should be implemented so that undocumented trafficked people do not face immigration enforcement or any sanction related to their undocumented residence or work. 

Suzanne Hoff, International Coordinator of La Strada International, said: “If there are indications of trafficking, the law already grants the person access to unconditional support, regardless of their status or engagement with authorities or legal proceedings. However, this hardly happens in practice, and also prevents access to remedies. The revision should have addressed this, and incorporated more binding provisions to strengthen rights for trafficked people. This includes the possibility to access a residence permit on personal grounds, the erasure of any criminal record and sanctions linked to their trafficking, and the prefinancing by States of compensation awarded”. 

In a final vote on 12 April 2024, the Council of the EU approved work permit rules for migrant workers that would improve application processes, labour market mobility and possibilities to escape exploitation (the revised Single Permit Directive).

Most notably, the revised Directive seeks to ease procedures for non-EU workers to change employer. Work permits are often issued linked to a specific job, tying the migrant worker to their employer. Changing employer often entails lengthy and costly procedures, keeps workers in great uncertainty and ultimately prevents many from changing employer even when they endure abuse and exploitation. While governments will still be able to require certain conditions to be met, workers will now have a right to change employer and the process should be simpler, faster and more predictable.

In the same vein, the revised Directive also ensures migrant workers can be out of work for a certain period of time without automatically losing their permit. This is a crucial aspect for workers needing or choosing to change employer, as they can use this time to seek alternative work without becoming undocumented. Workers on a single permit will now be able to be out of work for least three months, or six months if they have been on a single permit for more than two years, within the validity of the permit. If there are reasonable grounds that the worker has experienced particularly exploitative working conditions, they can be out of work for an additional three months without their permit becoming invalid. The new law also requires governments to facilitate complaints and access to legal redress for migrant workers.

Some other changes aim to make it easier to apply for and obtain a single permit, in particular: in-country applications must now be accepted if the worker has a valid residence permit in the country and processing times are now capped at 90 days (previously they were 120 days).

Lilana Keith, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said:  “Too often work permits tie migrant workers to their employers, disempower them and enable exploitation. Though far from perfect, this revision of the Single Permit Directive is an important step forward in recognising the right of all workers to change employer and potentially escape situations of abuse.”

This revision is a promising step forward in enforcing the rights of migrant workers and improving their working conditions. Much more though still needs to be done to really break the chain of dependency of workers on their employers – and much will also depend on how national governments implement these new rules.

Following the adoption of this directive by the European Parliament plenary session in mid-March, the Council’s vote is the final step of the legislative process on the revision of the Single Permit Directive. Governments will now have two years to make sure these revised rules are applied on national level.

In a final plenary vote on April 10, the European Parliament sealed a Migration Pact that will likely lead to widespread human rights violations across Europe and at its borders.

Among potential harms, this would mean that:

• Any person coming to Europe without valid travel documents will likely be detained in border facilities, without exceptions regarding age, including families with babies.
• People who are considered not eligible for asylum will risk being directly channelled into deportation procedures, disregarding other existing national avenues for people to stay in Europe, from medical permits to family reunification.
• People will not have any effective legal representation while they undergo administrative procedures at borders. People who appeal their deportation order can be deported while waiting for a decision on their case.
• Racialised communities living in the EU (including EU citizens) will be increasingly profiled as screening procedures are rolled out to identify people who have, at a certain point, entered irregularly across the bloc.
• Member states will be able to derogate from key safeguards when they claim a third country is pushing people to their borders (which the Pact calls “instrumentalisation of migration”).

Our concerns are echoed by international and national human rights organisations across Europe in previous joint statements calling on EU lawmakers to vote down this Pact.

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said: “People move. They always have and always will. We need routes for people to move and settle in safety and dignity. But under the EU Migration Pact people will undoubtedly experience even more violence and pushbacks in their migration journey and at borders.”

Between January and December 2023, at least 117 people faced judicial proceedings in the EU for acting in solidarity with migrants. The majority were charged with facilitation of entry, stay or transit or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation). The figures stem from media monitoring of different national news outlets conducted by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) throughout 2023.

This is most likely an undercount, as statistical and official data concerning those who are being accused, charged, or convicted for smuggling and related offences is often lacking. Many cases go unreported by the media or because people fear retaliation, especially migrants themselves. In addition, some cases reported by the media might not have been detected by our alert system.

Nonetheless, this data confirm a concerning, ongoing trend observed in previous reports. At least 102 people were criminalised in the EU in 2022. At least 89 people were criminalised between January 2021 and March 2022, and at least 158 were accused of smuggling between 2015 and 2019.

Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM, said: “These numbers are only the tip of the iceberg of what is actually happening in the European Union. Current trends are likely to worsen as EU proposals to fight migrant smuggling fail to include a binding exemption of humanitarian acts from potential criminalisation.”

Our media monitoring found that the majority of people criminalized were in southern Europe: 74 people were criminalised in Italy and 31 people in Greece. People were also reported criminalized in other countries: six in Poland, three in Malta; two in Latvia and one in Cyprus (there may also be cases in other countries that went undetected in our alert system).  Nearly 60% of people were criminalized for solidarity with migrants on land, and roughly 40% at sea.

Among those criminalised, forty-six people were criminalised for rescuing or helping migrants in distress at sea. Nineteen were criminalised for providing shelter to migrants; 18 for promoting inclusive policies at local level; 17 for trying to stop a deportation, and eight people were criminalized for providing migrants with food, water, and clothes. For example, In one case from Latvia, two citizens were charged with facilitating irregular entry simply because they gave food and water to migrants stranded at the border with Belarus.

The average length of the proceedings is 3.5 years, but many last even longer. In one case from Italy, former Riace mayor Mimmo Lucano, with international renown for the projects on the inclusion of migrants in his village, spent five years in house arrest and under investigation. In another case from Greece, 24 human rights activists, including volunteer lifeguards Sean Binder and Sarah Mardini, have been undergoing legal proceedings for more than four years for charges brought against them for rescuing asylum-seekers at sea. While part of the charges were finally dropped in 2023, the felony charges are still unresolved.   

Among the 42 individuals whose trials were closed in 2023, 40 people received an acquittal. Even if they end in an acquittal, trials still have heavy consequences on people’s finances, personal life, and psychological wellbeing.

People criminalised for crossing borders irregularly

Not only solidarity with migrants is being criminalised under counter-smuggling legislation, but also the very act of migrating. According to our monitoring, between January 2023 and December 2023, at least 76 migrants in Italy, Greece and Spain were criminalised for the sole act of crossing borders irregularly.

At least seven of the people criminalised in 2023 were children at the time of the facts.

LeVoy said: “The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants is deeply tied with the criminalisation of migration itself. These are not two separate issues but are in fact a continuum of restrictive migration policies that make border crossing unsafe and create a hostile environment against those who are considered to have entered in an irregular manner.”

Fifty-three migrants were charged with facilitation of irregular entry for actions including driving a boat, being on boat (12 people charged), and resisting a pushback at sea (9 people charged). The accusations fail to capture the underlying motivations behind these actions, which often include reuniting with family members, covering the cost of the passage, seeking livelihoods, and supporting others. In one case from Greece, a 45-year-old Egyptian man was sentenced to 280 years in prison under the accusation of human trafficking, smuggling, and belonging to a criminal organisation simply because he helped steer the vessel he was in with other 476 migrants, including his son.

Administrative sanctions and non-judicial harassment of NGOs

Our media monitoring also recorded at least 15 cases of non-judicial harassment, concerning 17 individuals and 12 NGOs. These cases are in addition to the 117 described above.

In one third of the cases, the person or the organisation concerned was issued an administrative fine for their actions in support to migrants. Other non-judicial forms of harassment included confiscation of material, police harassment or detention, threats by private groups, restrictions of access to certain locations and to people of concern, and defamation.

In one case from France, three members of the NGO Bidasoa Etorkinekin were taken into police custody in the city of Urrugne for one day after sheltering migrants in a local reception centre. In Italy, search and rescue ships Geo Barents, Humanity 1, Sea Watch Aurora, and Open Arms were all impounded and their crews fined several thousand euros for violating the Italian Legislative Decree 15/2023 that prohibits multiple rescues at sea in one trip. In Cyprus, equality NGO KISA has been facing harassment and attacks for years, including a bombing attack in their offices in January 2024.

MEPs in the European Parliament’s LIBE and FEMM committees voted today on their joint report revising the EU’s rules on victims’ rights (the EU Victims’ Rights Directive).

The committees’ vote improves the European Commission’s original proposal in several ways. The European Parliament LIBE and FEMM committees voted to:

• Allow third parties to report abuse to police (instead of undocumented people having to report a crime themselves). This helps address the need for victims to report crimes without direct involvement with law enforcement.
• Ensure people held in (de facto) immigration detention can report abuse from any place of detention or restricted liberty. This expands the more restrictive scope of what the European Commission’s proposal intended with “detention facilities” and brings it in line with the expected rise in (de facto) immigration detention due to the EU Migration Pact.
• Establish mechanisms for reporting potential crimes committed by public officials while on duty. The Commission’s proposal however did not address abuse perpetrated by public authorities such as police, border guards, and staff in immigration detention centres.
• Ensure access to legal aid free of charge for particularly vulnerable victims, including trafficked persons and victims of violence against women.
• Consider residence status in the individual needs assessment, both in the personal characteristics and the dependence to the offender. This will ensure that the specific needs of undocumented victims linked to their residence status are taken into account.
• Ensure victims can not only obtain a decision on compensation, as the Commission proposed, but also to claim compensation. This will strengthen their right to remedies. 

At the same time, to our regret, the MEPs failed to introduce comprehensive protections from immigration enforcement.

The original revision proposed by the European Commission prohibits police from sharing data related to the victim’s migration status with immigration enforcement from when they report the crime until the completion of the first individual needs assessment. The LIBE-FEMM committees vote lengthens this time limitation until the completion of the criminal proceeding.

But this partial shield is not enough. In line with the right to privacy and data protection enshrined in Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, at no stage should a victim’s residence status be shared with migration authorities. Faced with the risk of detention and deportation, many victims would not report abuse to the police. This means they won’t be identified as victims of crime and won’t receive the support and protection they need and are entitled to.

Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM, said: “Today’s vote is a welcome step forward in helping undocumented people report abuse safely. But undocumented people must be able to trust that they will not face immigration consequences, including detention and deportation when reporting a crime. We regret that the European Parliament did not take a bolder position to ensure people don’t get punished to get the support they need.”

Suzanne Hoff, Coordinator of La Strada International, said: “We regret that safe reporting protection stops after the completion of criminal proceedings. Especially, we see in practice that victims, including trafficked persons, have no access to support if there are no investigations, and if they do not lead to a successful prosecution. We hope that the Council will use its opportunity to strengthen the text further and ensure equal access to all victims of crime, regardless their residence”.

Over 50 human rights organisations had released a joint statement calling on EU lawmakers to shield undocumented migrants from immigration enforcement when they report abuse to the police, as the EU is discussing new rules to protect victims of crime. Signatories include Amnesty International, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), La Strada International, and Victim Support Europe.

Charities on both sides of the English Channel have hit out at the new cooperation agreement between EU border agency Frontex and UK authorities signed in London today between UK officials and EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson; citing human rights scandals surrounding both organisations and an enforcement approach that is “flawed from conception.” 

• The “integrated border management” between countries described in today’s deal has had serious consequences. Frontex was recently found to be systematically sharing the coordinates of Mediterranean boats in distress with militias and pirates that return people crossing to conditions of abuse and violence. 
• This news came over a year on from the forced resignation of its former director (now a European Parliament candidate for the French far-right National Rally) over the agency’s complicity and cover-ups in Greece’s deadly border campaign, which was supposed to herald a culture change. 
• The number of UK border drownings has doubled in the past year, which rescue NGO Alarmphone says is linked to Anglo-French border policy. UK and French authorities have faced allegations of serious shortcomings in responding to Channel shipwrecks. 
• Meanwhile the UK continues to attempt to undermine its own courts and international refugee law with its plans to outsource its asylum processes to Rwanda, and its abuse-ridden detention estate is widely documented.

Quotes from organisations responding to the move can be found below. 

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said:

“Frontex is signing this new agreement with the UK border forces after countless reports of complicity by the EU agency in serious violence.”

“The plan is flawed from conception. Tougher enforcement does not reduce irregular crossings; it only makes people’s journeys more dangerous. These resources should instead be used to provide safe routes and proper support for people seeking safety.”

Mary Atkinson, Campaigns and Networks Manager at the London-based Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said:

“People move – they always have and always will. It’s something we should welcome, not something which needs to be ‘tackled’ or ‘cracked down’ upon. We urgently need change so that people can move without risking – and too often losing – their lives.

“This latest development is just more of the same tired old thinking. Making our borders more violent has never stopped those in need from coming here and all these measures will do is make it more dangerous. The government needs to wake up and accept that ‘deterrents’ never have – and never will – work. Instead, we need to listen to the evidence and develop policies that prioritise people’s safety and human rights.”

A spokesperson for Calais-based Human Rights Observers said: 

“Frontex, the EU’s biggest agency, which squanders European taxpayers’ money by massively violating human rights, is preparing to land on the French-British border. With at least 28 people killed by the murderous border policies of France and the UK in 2023, the presence of Frontex would only increase the insecurity of people seeking protection.” 

Josephine Valeske at Europe-wide campaign Abolish Frontex said:

“UK border policy has seen deaths by drowning double in the last year, and its government continues to insist on violating both UK and international law by deporting people seeking asylum to Rwanda.” 

“Frontex claims to have made progress on rights – but joining the UK for its new so-called “crackdown” on migration shows that nothing has changed. The EU cannot claim to defend human rights while Frontex continues to exist, and expand a European axis of abuse, at our expense.” 

Over 40 human rights organisations have released a joint statement calling on EU lawmakers to shield undocumented migrants from immigration enforcement when they report abuse to the police, as the EU is discussing new rules to protect victims of crime. Signatories include Amnesty International, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), La Strada International, and Victim Support Europe.

The EU Victims’ Rights Directive, which sets out minimum rights for victims of abuse across the EU, is currently being revised and the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) committees of the European Parliament should vote on their position in April.

The revision proposed by the European Commission includes a prohibition for law enforcement to share personal data related to the victim’s migration status with immigration enforcement only while the first needs assessment is completed. This partial shield is not enough. Undocumented people must be able to trust that they will not face immigration consequences, including detention and deportation, throughout the reporting process.

We urge the European Parliament and the Council to take a clear stance for safety and protection for all victims, and ensure that no data transfer occurs between police and immigration enforcement as a result of undocumented victims reporting abuse.

Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM, said: “Undocumented people too often fear approaching the police to report abuse because they might risk detention and deportation instead of getting support and protection. The revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive must address this and make sure that everyone can safely report abuse, whatever their migration status.”

“EU lawmakers already failed to protect undocumented women from immigration enforcement should they report abuse to the police in the Directive on Violence Against Women. The revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive – which applies to women as well – must fill this gap and ensure that anyone who reports abuse gets the support they need and is not punished with detention and deportation for coming forward”.

Suzanne Hoff, Director of La Strada International, said: “In the revised EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, EU policy makers were only willing to include safe reporting mechanisms for children victims of trafficking, but not for adults. It is all the more important that this right to safe reporting will be strongly embedded in the new Victims’ Rights Directive. This will do justice to all victims of crime.”

The full statement and policy recommendations can be read here.

Amidst warnings from over 50 Civil Society Organisations, EU lawmakers reached a political agreement on the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum in December. The agreement is a continuation of a decade of policy that has led to the proliferation of rights violations in Europe. Moreover, it will have devastating implications for the right to international protection in the bloc and greenlights abuses across Europe including racial profiling, default de facto detention and pushbacks. Next week, MEPs will be presented with a final chance to reject the files in a Plenary vote, and to give a political signal against the adoption of a Pact that would undermine fundamental rights.

Taken together, the Regulations will usher in a new system for ‘managing migration’ in the EU that is characterised by:

• De facto detention at borders with no exemption for families with children of all ages, accelerated, substandard procedures to assess asylum claims rather than full and fair assessments, and an emphasis on return procedures with lowered safeguards.
• Far more asylum applicants will end up in border procedures and, through the ‘legal fiction of non-entry’, will not be considered as on EU territory, which would lead to lower safeguards and heightens the risk of human rights violations and pushbacks at borders. Even unaccompanied children can be subjected to border procedures and held in de facto detention when state authorities consider them a ‘danger to national security or public order’. Moreover, experience has shown that confining large numbers of people in border areas for prolonged periods leads to chronic overcrowding and inhumane conditions, as witnessed on the Aegean islands.
• Through the broadening of the ‘safe third country’ principle, people asking for asylum will be declared inadmissible and increasingly deported to countries outside of the EU on the basis of a widely-defined connection with those countries, heightening the risk of refoulement.  In the past, this has manifested in failed agreements like the EU-Turkey deal, externalising the processing of asylum claims to third countries.
• In the absence of safe and regular pathways, people seeking safety or livelihoods are forced to take ever more dangerous routes, resulting in 2023 being the deadliest year on record since 2015. In the Mediterranean alone, more than 2,500 individuals were reported as dead or disappeared last year, a figure that is only the tip of the iceberg. The Pact fails to address this, and instead continues to reinforce Fortress Europe.
• An increase in the use of surveillance technologies at all stages of migration and asylum procedures. The Pact represents a step further into the mass surveillance of migrants and racialised people, as more intrusive technology will be deployed at borders and in detention centres, people’s personal data will be collected in bulk and exchanged between police forces across the EU, or biometric identification systems will be used to track people’s movements and increase policing of undocumented migrants. 

Civil society and human rights watchdogs have consistently reported on systematic violations of the fundamental rights of people seeking safety or livelihood, particularly racialised communities by denying them access to shelter, services, and asylum and resorting to pushbacks en masse. All this, whilst pursuing policies that seek to criminalise efforts to help refugees and migrants, and even movement at large, which contributes to a shrinking civic space. The Commission put forth the New Pact as a ‘solution’ for uneven standards in the implementation of a Common European Asylum System across Member States. Yet, the Pact does nothing to remedy this nor support Member States receiving large numbers of arrivals at the external borders. The ‘first country of entry’ principle remains and there will be no mandatory relocation of people saved through Search and Rescue missions – an initiative that could have provided humane and sustainable solutions through the proportionate distribution of asylum applicants throughout Europe. Instead, Member States without external EU borders can avoid responsibility-sharing by financing border fortification and immigration detention facilities in border Member States or by funding dubious ‘projects’ in non-EU countries.

The negotiations were rushed towards closure by the European Commission and the Spanish and Belgian Presidencies of the Council, leading to more than 48 hours of marathon trilogue negotiations and the abandonment of the last minimal safeguards that had been upheld by the Parliament. What remains is an extremely complex legislative framework that does not provide any effective solution to the migration management issues raised over the past years, and fails to keep people safe. The agreement, at its core, replicates every principle of the Council’s negotiating mandate.

We, the undersigned, call on MEPs to reject the Pact in the Plenary vote. It creates a system whereby the right to seek asylum in the EU is severely threatened and will engender a proliferation of human rights violations against people across Europe due to their migration status.

Signing Organisations:

• A World of Neighbours
• A.S.G.I. (Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione)
• Abolish FronteX
• Access Now
• ActionAid International
• aditus foundation
• African Children and Youth Development Network (ACYDN)
• AiA-Alternative Informatics Association
• Alboan
• AMERA International
• Amnesty International
• Andalucía Acoge
• ARCI
• Association for Legal Information (SIP)
• Association promotion droits humains (Migration et droit)
• Associazione ricreativa e culturale italiana (ARCI)
• Avocats Sans Frontières
• Be Aware And Share (BAAS)
• Better Days Greece
• Birlikte Yaşamak İstiyoruz İnisiyatifi (We Want to Live Together İnitiative) / Türkiye (Turkey)
• Bits of Freedom
• Boat Refugee Foundation
• Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN)
• Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
• Center for Legal Aid – Voice in Bulgaria
• Centre for Peace Studies
• Changemakers Lab
• Churches´Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
• CILD
• CIRÉ asbl
• CNCD-11.11.11
• Colectivo Indignado
• Colectivos en lucha Extremadura
• Collective Aid
• Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR)
• Community Peacemaker Solidarity – Aegean Migrant Solidarity
• CONVIVE – Fundación Cepaim
• Coordinadora Obrim Fronteres
• Diotima – Centre for Gender Rights and Equality
• Dråpen i Havet / Stagona
• Draseis sti Geitonia
• E.L. Foundation
• ECCHR – European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights
• ECHO100PLUS
• EmpowerVan
• Entreculturas
• Epicenter.Works
• Equal Legal Aid
• Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice
• Equipo Decenio Afrodescendiente- Spain
• EuroMed Rights
• European Alternatives
• European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)
• European Civic Forum
• European Digital Rights (EDRi)
• European Network Against Racism
• European Sex Workers’ Rights Alliance
• Extinction rebellion Málaga
• Federation of protestant churches in Italy (FCEI)
• Fédérations des tunisiens citoyens des deux rives (FTCR)
• Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid
• Flucht, interkulturelle Arbeit, Migration, Diakonie Hessen,
• forRefugees
• From the Sea to the City
• Fundación para la Innovación, Investigación, Formación y el Desarrollo Comunitario (FÜNDEC)
• Geloof & Samenleving
• Global Peace and Development Organization
• Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
• Greek Forum of Migrants
• Grenzenlose Wärme – Refugee Relief Work e.V.
• Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré⋅es (GISTI)
• Grupa Granica
• Hermes Center
• HIAS Europe
• Homo Digitalis
• Hope Cafe Athens
• Human Rights Legal Project
• Human Rights Watch
• HumanRights360
• Humans in the Loop Foundation
• I Have Rights
• Infokolpa
• Instance Nationale de Protection des Biens Publics et de la Transparence au Maroc “INPBPTM”
• Institute Circle
• Inter Alia
• International Rescue Committee
• Irídia-Center for the defense of human rights
• Italy Must Act
• Jesuit Refugee Service Greece (JRS)
• JRS Europe
• JRS Malta (Jesuit Refugee Service)
• Kerk in Actie
• KISA Cyprus
• Klikaktiv
• La Cimade
• LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme)
• Legal Centre Lesvos
• Legis
• Lesvos Solidarity (LESOL)
• Lighthouse Relief
• Ligue des droits humains
• Maldusa project
• Médecins sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders
• medico international
• Migrant Voice
• Migration Consortium
• Migration Policy group (MPG)
• Migreurop
• Mobile Info Team
• Movimiento por la Paz (MPDL)
• Mugak Zabalduz
• Mv Louise Michel
• Network for Children’s Rights (Greece)
• No Name Kitchen
• No One is Illegal
• Northern Lights Aid
• Novact
• Ongi Etorri Errefuxiatuak
• Oxfam
• Pan African Alliance on Climate Change
• Peace Institute (Mirovni inštitut)
• Plataforma Ciudadana Caudete se Mueve
• Politiscope
• Privacy International
• PRO ASYL
• Project Armonia
• Project ELPIDA e.V.
• Quaker Council for European Affairs
• r42 – Sail And Rescue
• Reachout Foundation
• Red Acoge
• Red SOS Refugiados Europa
• Red Umbrella Sweden
• ReFOCUS Media Labs
• Refugee Legal Support (RLS)
• Refugees Welcome Italia
• RESQSHIP e.V.
• Salud por Derecho
• Salvamento Marítimo Humanitario
• Samos Volunteers
• Save the Children
• Sea-Eye e.V
• Sea-Watch
• Second Tree
• Seebrücke
• Servicio Jesuita a Migrantes – SJM
• Sienos Grupė (Lithuania)
• SOLIDAR
• SOS Balkanroute
• SOS Humanity
• Statewatch
• Stichting LOS
• Still I Rise
• Stop Border Violence
• The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)
• United Hands for Refugees e.V.
• United4Rescue – Gemeinsam retten e.V.
• Velos youth
• Walk of Shame
• Watch the Med Alarm-phone
• We Gaan Ze Halen (Let’s Bring Them Here)
• WissenschaftlerInnen für den Frieden Deutscland (Academics for Peace in Germany)
• Yoga and Sport with Refugees

This statement was first circulated in February 2024, when it gathered 81 signatures. It was then re-circulated in April 2024, gathering a total of 163 signatures.

EU lawmakers have reached a political agreement on the revision of the Schengen Borders Code that would de facto legitimise racial profiling in border checks.

The reform of the Schengen Borders Code aims at reducing the amount of temporary generalised internal EU border checks. However, it would escalate checks on specific groups of people. In particular, the deal would allow police authorities in joint patrols to carry out “random” document checks near internal EU borders with the aim of apprehending people without valid travel or residence documents. Research has already shown that police tend to stop people for checks based on racial, ethnic, or religious characteristics. It is clear that these checks will depend on police’s decisions about who “looks like” a person without valid papers.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This agreement embraces a very harmful narrative which assumes that people crossing borders without valid documents are a threat to the EU and proposes to address it by increasing policing, while de facto encouraging racial profiling”.

The deal would also legalise the violent practice of ‘internal pushbacks’, which consists in apprehending and detaining people caught without a valid document near an internal border, and transferring them to the member state the police think the person came from without conducting an individual assessment. It is still unclear which ‘safeguards’ have been introduced to protect children, who are not explicitly excluded from such transfer procedures.

The deal would most likely escalate the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies that do not apply relevant safeguards and would be at odds with existing EU data protection legislation and fundamental rights.

Lastly, the deal would also allow internal checks and increased policing in situations of so-called “instrumentalisation of migration”, that is when a member state claims that a non-EU country or ‘hostile non state actor’ is pushing migrants towards external EU borders for political reasons. This is an extremely problematic concept, whose codification into EU law would introduce broad derogations to fundamental rights, including the right to asylum and freedom of movement.

EU lawmakers have reached a political agreement on a new EU Directive on violence against women that prioritises migration control over women’s rights and needs, according to leaked documents seen by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM).

The draft Directive, whose final text will need to be voted by the European Parliament and the EU Council in the coming weeks, fails to protect undocumented women from immigration enforcement should they report violence and abuse to police.

In particular, the deal would delete Article 16(5), which was central to the European Commission’s initial proposal and strengthened by the Parliament to ensure that no personal data about victims of abuse, including residence status, would be shared by police with immigration authorities. This would have shielded undocumented women from risks of being detained and deported as a result of reporting abuse.

Instead, that article would be replaced with a non-binding recital 26(a) that invites member states to ensure that non-EU victims “are not discouraged from reporting and are treated in a non-discriminatory manner”.

Such exclusion of a whole group of women from protection and justice is in clear contradiction with the Istanbul Convention, which the EU is bound by since October 2023 and mandates its signatories to ensure all women are treated equally, regardless of their residence status.

This deal would also contradict the EU’s very own rules on victims’ rights (Victims’ Rights Directive) and on data protection (General Data Protection Regulation), both of which provide for rights and safeguards that apply to everyone without discrimination.

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “Who would report violence and abuse if they risked being locked up and deported instead of getting support and protection? This deal exemplifies the EU’s fixation on migration control, at the cost of leaving out a whole group of women who are undocumented or have precarious residence status, and who are more likely to experience violence and abuse precisely because their status puts them in a situation of vulnerability.”