Powered by Blogger.

Archivio blog


martedì 3 maggio 2016

Accordi UE-Turchia, privi di base legale, nella prassi applicata violano i diritti fondamentali delle persone. Quale ruolo per l'agenzia FRONTEX ?

Un "trattato" privo di base legale, attuato con misure di polizia che cancellano i diritti fondamentali delle persone. Mentre rimane segreto il testo completo delle intese raggiunte dall'Unione Europea e dalla Turchia, si comincia a verificare la esatta portata applicativa degli accordi, nelle prassi di polizia con un pesante coinvolgimento dell'Agenzia europea FRONTEX. La ritrosia di alcuni stati europei ad accettare il ricatto di Erdogan sul rilascio di visti di ingresso a cittadini turchi sta di fatto mettendo a  rischio la piena  attuazione delle intese, che comunque hanno una efficacia limitata a 72.500 persone, siriani, oggetto di uno scambio ignobile.Per un siriano respinto dalla Grecia dopo essere entrato irregolarmente, un siriano potrà lasciare la Turchia ed entrare legalmente nell'area Schengen.






Violate ancora una volta le regole di decisione nei processi legislativi dell'Unione Europea.



The final EU/Turkey refugee deal: a legal assessment


Gli accordi Unione Europea-Turchia visti dalla Grecia. Verso una nuova emergenza umanitaria.


However, during the second round of voting, two SYRIZA MPs opted not to support Article 60, which allows authorities to limit the length of appeal against the rejection of asylum applications to two weeks. Lawmaker Vassiliki Katrivanou voted against the provision, while former migration policy minister Tasia Christodoulopoulou abstained. One Independent Greeks MP was absent from the vote.
The passing of the legislation means that there is now a legal framework for the fast-track processing of asylum applications and appeals so refugees who have arrived in Greece by boat from Turkey can be returned to the neighboring country. The EU has committed to resettling one Syrian refugee from Turkey for every one that Greece sends back.
The bill also paves the way for authorities to boost the number of personnel at their disposal to enforce the agreement and to improve facilities for holding refugees while they are processed.

Altri dettagli sulla legge greca che il Parlamento ha dovuto adottare per rendere esecutivi gli accordi UE-Turchia.

Both Greece and Turkey had to amend their legislation to permit the start of the scheme - denounced by the U.N. refugee agency and rights groups for lacking legal safeguards - to send back all migrants who reached Greece after March 20.
The bill was passed by 169 lawmakers in the 300-seat parliament.
The legislation does not explicitly designate Turkey as a "safe third country" - a formula to make any mass returns legally sound.

The European Commission sees this as not essential, provided rules are in place to allow people to be sent back to a "safe third country" or a "safe first country of asylum", with each case examined individually.

Gli effetti degli accordi, se si sono ridotti gli ingressi dalla Turchia, stanno aumentando i campi di detenzione informale in Grecia, e gli Hotspot, piuttosto che facilitare la relocation  verso altri paesi europei, si sono trasformati in grandi campi di concentramento.



Aumentano i dubbi sull'operato di Frontex, con particolare riferimento alle operazioni di rimpatrio collettivo.

Is the EU-Turkey refugee and migration deal a treaty?

Maarten den Heijer*, Thomas Spijkerboer**

*Assistant professor of international law at the Universiteit van Amsterdam
**Professor of migration law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

In the European Parliament, questions were asked about the legal nature of the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March, pursuant to which Greece has started to return asylum seekers to Turkey this week. Apparently, the EU’s procedure for negotiating and concluding treaties with third countries, laid down in in Art. 218 TFEU, has not been followed. The European Parliament wants to know whether the Council nonetheless considers the Statement to be a treaty, and, if not, whether Turkey has been informed about the non-binding nature. Importantly, for treaties “covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies”(asylum and immigration is such a field), the Council may only conclude a treaty with a third country after obtaining consent of the European Parliament (Art. 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU).

It seems that legal experts of the Commission and the Council have identified the issue. Shortly after the EU-Turkey Statement, the Commission proposedto amend the Relocation Decisions relating to Italy and Greece, in order to transfer some of the relocation commitments concerning asylum seekers arriving in Italy and Greece to Syrians in Turkey. The proposal appears to contradict the view that the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March did not intend to produce legal effects. However, in consideration 4 of the proposal’s preamble, the presented rationale for the amendment is the Statement of the EU Heads of State or Government of 7 March 2016, in which the Members of the European Council (and not Turkey) agreed to work towards the Turkish proposal of resettling,“for every Syrian readmitted by Turkey from Greek islands, another Syrian from Turkey to the Member States, within the framework of the existing commitments”. The Commission would seem to be navigating around the EU-Turkey Statement as the ground for amending the 22 September Council Decision, possibly fearing that to do otherwise may lend support to the argument that the Statement is, in fact, a treaty.

It could be argued that the statement is not a treaty in the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or an international agreement in the meaning of Article 216 TFEU, precisely because it is merely a “statement”. This is the view of
Steve Peers on this blog:“Since the agreement will take the form of a ‘statement’, in my view it will not as such be legally binding. Therefore there will be no procedure to approve it at either EU or national level, besides its endorsement by the summit meeting. Nor can it be legally challenged as such. However, the individual elements of it – new new Greek, Turkish and EU laws (or their implementation), and the further implementation of the EU/Turkey readmission agreement – will have to be approved at the relevant level, or implemented in individual cases if they are already in force.” Karolína Babická appears to share this view: “The EU-Turkey statement as such is not legally binding. It is only a politically binding joint declaration. It is not challengeable as such but its implementation in practice will be possibly challenged in court.”

A further reason not to view the statement as a treaty is that it does not use terms as shall and should, which are normally used in international law to indicate obligations of result (shall) or obligations of effort (should). Instead, the more indistinct term ‘will’ is used. On the other hand, the Statement says that the EU and Turkey “have agreed on the following additional points”. Article 216 TFEU uses the term ‘agreement’ when referring to a treaty with third countries. If two parties agree to something, can the result be anything less than an“agreement”? Or is the meaning of the term agreement in Art. 216 TFEU different from its ordinary meaning?

If one would embrace the thought that the Statement of 18 March is not a treaty or agreement because it is designated as “Statement” and uses the term “will”, it would follow that the EU could neglect the constitutional safeguards of Art. 218 TFEU by changing the form or terminology of a particular text. It would be rather odd if the EP and CJEU could be sidetracked by such clever ruses. It would mean that the applicability of constitutional safeguards depends entirely on choices regarding the design instead of content made by Commission or Council.




Gravi violazioni dei diritti umani nei rapporti tra Unione Europea, Grecia e Turchia si prospettano da tempo, senza che la politica italiana ne tenga conto, anzi Alfano annuncia la duplicazione degli accordi tra Unione Europea e Turchia nei rapporti con la Libia, ammesso che si possa parlare di una Libia unitaria. Ignorare la reale situazione sul terreno non può che portare a scelte politiche e militari disastrose.


Contribution to an EU strategy for external action on migration



0 commenti:

Posta un commento

Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.


Un blog perché la cronaca quotidiana non diventi assuefazione, per contrastare la rimozione di problemi che sono prodotto di scelte politiche e di prassi amministrative che si nascondono dietro le retoriche dell'emergenza e della sicurezza. Prima di Lampedusa, prima dello sbarco, cronache di viaggi che spesso terminano in tragedie, poi notizie raccolte nei luoghi di sbarco e di accoglienza, dove si diffonde la detenzione informale e dove i diritti fondamentali dei migranti vengono compressi da una discrezionalità che si sottrae a qualsiasi controllo giurisdizionale, infine testimonianze di viaggio verso altri paesi, per trovare quel futuro e quella dignità che lItalia non garantisce più. E dunque fatti, persone, non numeri o dati, un racconto quotidiano che diventa memoria, ma anche impulso per modificare, in Italia ed in Europa, il quadro legislativo e le procedure applicate.

Diritti sotto sequestro