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”. 

Today, the Council of the EU officially adopted the EU Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence.¹ As 13 civil society organisations² which advocate for human rights, gender equality, and the right for all to live free from violence, we welcome this first ever binding EU legislation on this issue as a groundbreaking step.

The Directive adopts a holistic approach to combat violence against women and domestic violence, incorporating measures relating to prevention, protection, support for victims, access to justice and prosecution of perpetrators. This achievement is the result of long-term advocacy by feminist movements and Members of the European Parliament championing the European Commission’s ambitious proposal. We extend our gratitude to everyone involved in making this Directive as strong as possible.

We applaud the fact that the Directive recognizes the perpetration of female genital mutilation, forced marriage and certain forms of online violence as crimes. Unfortunately, other forms of violence were ultimately not criminalised, including intersex genital mutilation and forced sterilisation. We deeply regret that some Member States managed to derail the unprecedented opportunity to criminalise rape with a consent-based definition at the EU level. Sexual violence against women is endemic across the EU, with widespread impunity. Consent-based definitions of rape allow for all cases of rape to be included and strengthen protection and access to justice for victims of rape. We continue to call on all Member States who have not yet done so, to move towards adopting consent-based laws.

Crucially, the Directive will require Member States to do more to prevent rape, by raising public awareness of the fact that sex without consent is a crime, through awareness raising programmes and educational materials. We encourage Member States to embrace the comprehensive prevention approach outlined in the Directive, in particular primary prevention initiatives, and to provide mandatory comprehensive sexuality education, which includes consent education and challenges harmful gender norms.

The Directive further guarantees comprehensive support to victims of violence against women and girls and domestic violence and access to both general and specialist support services, shelters, support for child victims, as well as access to comprehensive medical care including sexual and reproductive health services. This is the first time that EU law imposes explicit obligations on Member States to provide access to this essential medical care for victims of sexual violence. Member States will also have to provide training for professionals likely to come into contact with victims, on how to provide this support.

The Directive recognises that victims of violence against women and domestic violence who experience intersectional discrimination are at a heightened risk of violence, and obliges Member States to meet their specific needs. Targeting a public figure, a human rights defender, or someone for their personal characteristics will constitute an aggravating circumstance. In the implementation of the Directive, Member States must ensure that all victims and survivors of gender-based violence are protected, no matter their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics.

However, EU lawmakers yet again silenced women impacted by EU migration policies. The only concrete step forward for migrant women is that the text requires Member States to make shelters available to all women experiencing domestic abuse, regardless of their residence status. Nonetheless we condemn that the final text does not retain provisions on protecting undocumented women’s personal data from being transmitted to immigration authorities (neither in the context of accessing shelters, nor in terms of accessing justice). Member States must ensure that women are not deterred from going to the police because of their residence status, by including access to safe reporting in the ongoing revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive³.

We call on the European Commission to provide guidelines and training to Member States, based on international standards and in consultation with civil society organisations. We urge Member States to fully implement the Directive as soon as possible. Recalling that the Directive sets minimum standards, we call on Member States to go beyond these and to realise the highest standards across the EU.

We call on the European Commission to review the Directive in the next five years and to work towards comprehensive and inclusive measures to address all forms of sexual and gender-based violence without discrimination.

We, together with our members across Europe, are committed to providing our expertise, and look forward to supporting a strong implementation of the Directive, to progress towards a Europe where everyone is safe from gender-based violence.

Signatories

• Amnesty International
• Center for Reproductive Rights
• EL*C – Eurocentralasian Lesbian* Community
• End FGM European Network
• European Sex Workers Rights Alliance
• Human Rights Watch
• ILGA-Europe (The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN)
• La Strada International
• Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII Europe)
• Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
• TGEU (Trans Europe and Central Asia)
• Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE)

---

¹ Throughout this statement, the term “women” should be understood as including “women and girls”, as in the definition of “violence against women” proposed by the European Commission in the Directive, which encompasses “violence directed against a woman or a girl”.

² Amnesty International, Center for Reproductive Rights, EuroCentralAsian Lesbian* Community (EL*C), End FGM European Network, European Sex Workers’ Rights Alliance (ESWA), Human Rights Watch, ILGA-Europe (The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN), La Strada International, Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII Europe), Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), TGEU (Trans Europe and Central Asia), Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE).

Our organisations work on a diverse range of women’s rights issues. In the drafting of this document, we have been led by the expertise of women’s rights organisations and women human rights defenders from communities most impacted by the specific forms of violence described in each section. Our commitment to the text below represents our coming together as a collective with shared values, even though not every organisation has its own policy or programme of work dedicated to each issue.

³ For more information, see a joint civil society statement on the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive, signed by some of our organisations who are advocating for victims’ rights.

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.

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.

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 ↩︎

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.”

On 29 and 30 November 2023, PICUM jointly organised with Equinox a legal seminar on racial profiling, policing and migration control, bringing together advocates, community organisers and legal practitioners working on racial justice, migrant justice, prison abolition and related movements. This blog shares some highlights of our discussions.

“Migration frameworks all over the world are mechanisms through which racial subordination is achieved.”

These words from former UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Tendayi Achiume, who opened our legal seminar, were a  reminder of how migration and racism are deeply interlinked.

Across Europe, policing and immigration enforcement are increasingly interconnected, disproportionately harming communities of colour. The growing use of technology and AI as a tool for border management compounds existing discriminatory practices against people with an irregular migration status and communities of colour. Racialised communities on either side of border crossings and within our communities bear the brunt of these trends.

Racism and migration in the EU

Moderated by Emmanuel Achiri, European Network Against Racism

We heard from Karin de Vries, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at Utrecht University, about how racism plays a critical role in the EU migration policy. This includes visa policy, conditions for long term residence, state discretion in treating people with different countries of origin differently, and the very inequality underlying many of the choices, opportunities and experiences of migration. Alyna Smith, Deputy Director at PICUM, further highlighted how race and racism are embedded in the very language of EU laws about “deterrence” and the “fight against irregular migration”, in criminalisation frameworks, in counter-smuggling measures that tend to make crossings and journeys more dangerous for people.

Vida Beresneviciute, Equality Project Officer at the Fundamental Rights Agency, shared key findings from the Agency’s recent research on the discrimination experience of black people in Europe. Racial discrimination increased in key areas of life, with 45% of respondents reporting racial discrimination in 2022 – marking a significant increase from 39% in 2016. Police stops continue to be particularly problematic, as 58% of them are characterised as racial profiling by people who experienced them.

The EU equality frameworks largely fail to address these realities, and the various manifestations of racism more broadly. For instance, the 2000 Racial Equality Directive does not apply to law enforcement. The 2020 Anti-Racism Action Plan, quickly adopted in response to the murder of George Floyd in the US and the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests across the world, fails to address racism in EU migration policies. In fact, within days of adoping the Anti-Racism Action Plan the European Commission released a ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ that further criminalises and targets undocumented people, leading to discrimination, violence against migrants and racialised people, whether at the borders or already living in the EU.

Blurring the line between criminal law and immigration law

Moderated by Laurence Meyer, Digital Freedom Fund, and Laure Baudrihaye, Independent expert

On the contrary, many EU migration policies, including recent and ongoing reforms, perpetuate systemic racism through measures that blur the lines between immigration and criminal law.

Ulrich Stege, a lawyer collaborating with the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), illustrated key trends in this conflation between immigration and criminal law – denoted as “crimmigration”. These include the use of administrative detention for security-related purposes, the use of criminal law as a deterrent against migration, the criminalisation of irregular entry and of solidarity with people in an irregular situation, as well as the use of technology to enhance immigration enforcement. On this latter point, Chloë Berthelemy, Senior Policy Advisor at European Digital Rights (EDRi), discussed the expansion of the Eurodac database to collect more personal data of asylum seekers, including children, and cooperation between Frontex and Europol in collecting and sharing personal data.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, outlined how current EU migration reforms, such as the revision of the Schengen Borders Code and the Migration Pact, would likely lead to more racial profiling as border guards and police are encouraged to stop and search anyone who looks ‘foreign’ to detect people in an irregular situation.

At the national level, such trends and policies are already having dramatic effects on racialised people and people in an irregular situation. In particular, we heard about the criminalisation of people steering boats with migrants in Italy (Sara Traylor, Alarm Phone), violent police operations that led to the murder of a two-year old in Belgium (Selma Benkhelifa, Progress Lawyers), and border control technology in Greece in the form of biometric police gadgets, surveillance systems and social media monitoring apps (Lamprini Gyftokosta, Homodigitalis).

Racial profiling for immigration control across borders and within Europe

Moderated by Adla Shashati, Greek Forum of Migrants

Racial profiling in the name of migration control has long been present at Europe’s borders. As Parvin Abkhoudarestani, a refugee from Iran who experienced multiple violent pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish border, said: “Who can move depends on your skin colour, it’s decided by your race. My movement is illegalised”. Laure Palun of French NGO Anafé, discussed how racial profiling in border checks and migration and visa policy in France is leading to pushbacks, refusals of entry, detention of children, police violence, the militarisation of borders with Italy and Spain, and the criminalisation of those who help people in an irregular situation.

Racial profiling has already quickly moved beyond the confines of border crossings and transit hubs into mainstream policing and broader civil administration. Ting Chen, coordinator of Roses d’Acier, a group that provides support to undocumented Chinese sex workers, spoke of the police targeting Chinese women in Paris with repeated identity checks in specific districts.

Monish Bhatia, Lecturer in Sociology at the University of York, discussed his research on immigration raids in the UK and described them as racist state violence and kidnappings that exist to instill fear among impacted communities. Raids are sometimes triggered by citizens’ calls to the police, which are grounded on racist assumptions as to the potential presence of people in an irregular situation.

The way forward – How can we challenge racial profiling in the immigration context?

Moderated by Sarah Chander, European Digital Rights

Different strategies are needed to challenge these trends, and to anchor them in a shared frame of racial and migrant justice. In our last panel, we heard from Jennifer Kamau from International Women Space about the need for Europe to recognise its historical responsibilities around colonialism, conflict, climate change, and ongoing colonialist approaches, which all have an impact on global migration today and driving harmful policies and practices. She also invited everyone to recognise the power of words in shaping reality and to change the way we talk about this reality to fight against systemic oppression.

Saskia Bricmont, Member of the European Parliament, addressed the political struggle in the European Parliament and between EU institutions in resisting harmful migration policies, such as the EU Migration Pact, as well as in promoting fairer trade deals with third countries.

Sarah Chander, co-founder of Equinox, encouraged groups who share transformative goals to connect our different strategies and struggles, from grassroots to political levels. In closing, Alyna Smith invited social change actors to reflect on how we can work across movements, how we are perpetuating structures of oppression through our language and work, and how we can dismantle systemic oppression while reimagining a different world.

Watch the recordings of the legal seminar on our YouTube channel: