{"id":10858,"date":"2025-03-11T13:04:29","date_gmt":"2025-03-11T13:04:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/?p=10858"},"modified":"2025-03-11T13:04:36","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T13:04:36","slug":"press-release-on-the-return-package-11th-march","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/news\/item\/press-release-on-the-return-package-11th-march\/","title":{"rendered":"Press Release on the Return package 11th March"},"content":{"rendered":"

New EU common approach on returns: Risks and human rights violations<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the European Commission (EC) unveils its so-called \u201cnew common approach on returns\u201d today, 11 March, aimed at speeding up returns to countries of origin and transit, the undersigned civil society organisations (CSOs) raise concerns about the human rights implications that these proposals would entail.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problems with the Safe Third Country concept<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal will probably include a new Return Directive or Regulation, thus replacing the 2018 proposal on the recast of the Directive 2008\/115\/EC (the Return Directive), provisions on the so-called \u201creturn hubs\u201d and the revision of the Safe Third Country (STC) concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EuroMed Rights <\/a>has for long advocated<\/a> against the concept of \u201csafe third country\u201d and \u201csafe country of origin\u201d as it is contrary to the spirit of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which provides for the individual examination of each asylum claim: each personal situation is unique, and no country is free from failing to protect individual rights or exempted from human rights violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, countries have increasingly and disproportionately relied on this concept to increase the returns of people seeking asylum in Europe. Italy, for example, <\/a>updated<\/a> in 2024 its list of \u201csafe countries of origin\u201d to include Egypt and Tunisia to the list, despite the numerous documented human rights violations perpetrated in both countries and the fact that Egypt, for example, is not a signatory to the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the upcoming revision of the STC concept in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), the undersigned organisations raise concerns on the EU\u2019s willingness to lower the protection threshold provided by a third country and to eliminate the connection criteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lower protection threshold<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As part of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in 2024, <\/em><\/strong>the APR has already lowered the protection threshold that a third country must provide by introducing the concept of \u201ceffective protection,\u201d which is a lower protection than that provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention. This will de facto detention.<\/em> allow EU Member States (MS) to consider a country that is not part of the Refugee Convention as \u201csafe\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, this could be applied in the context of Lebanon<\/strong>, which is not a signatory of the Convention but is considered \u201csafe\u201d by Cyprus,<\/strong> which has already carried out violent and unlawful refoulements <\/em>of Syrian asylum seekers. Cyprus has already been <\/a>condemned<\/a> by the European Court of Human Rights in October 2024 in the case of M.A. AND Z.R. v. CYPRUS (Appl. No 39090\/20).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connection criteria<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the fact that UNHCR, in its <\/a>legal considerations<\/a> in the context of safe third countries, highlighted the importance of a connection<\/em> between the asylum seeker and the third country – e.g. previous stays or the presence of family members or close ties in the country –  it is highly probable that EU Member States decide to remove the connection criteria in their STC revision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This will leave a great margin of discretion to MS to return asylum seekers to third countries without having any link whatsoever with that country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Human rights violations<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many of the countries often considered \u201csafe\u201d and with whom the EU has recently signed controversial agreements aiming at curbing migration, e.g. <\/a>Tunisia<\/a>, <\/a>Lebanon<\/a> and <\/a>Egypt<\/a>, the human rights and rule of law context is rapidly worsening. In Tunisia<\/strong>, the recent elections have sealed the authoritarian grip of the President while the situation for migrants and refugees is <\/a>alarming<\/a>, with reports of mass expulsions, hate speech and physical aggressions on the rise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Egypt<\/strong>, repression against civil society, human rights defenders and of peaceful dissent online and offline – which affects anyone on Egypt territory -, arbitrary arrests, mass detention and extra-judicial killings remain key concerns. The <\/a>recently passed national asylum law<\/a> will vastly worsen an already severe situation for asylum seekers and refugees in the country, where recent arbitrary mass arrests, detention and forced returns of Sudanese refugees, among others, have been <\/a>documented<\/a>. In their Communication on the Asylum law in Egypt<\/a>, the UN Special Procedures raised serious concerns on the impact that the law would have on the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and that, \u201cif enacted, would fall significantly short of international human rights and refugee law and other relevant standards\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion<\/strong>, what the EU is proposing would be yet another attempt to move further and further away from right-based migration and asylum policies, thus continuing with the externalisation trend that has been a complete failure, such as the recent <\/a>Italy-Albania deal<\/a>, and has led to endless suffering, violations and <\/a>deaths<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Signatories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Tamkeen for legal aid and human rights (Jordan)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. ARCI<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. \u0130HD – Human Rights Association (Turkey)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Ir\u00eddia (Spain)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Novact (Spain)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. CEAR<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. CNCD-\u00a011.11.11<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Human Rights League (LDH)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. CS-LADDH<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Fondation pour la promotion des droits<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Association\u00a0tunisienne des Femmes D\u00e9mocrates\u00a0(ATFD)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Centre for Peace Studies Croatia<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. Safe Passage International<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. KISA<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. La Fondation pour la promotion des droits<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. EuroMed Rights<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Version fran\u00e7aise<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Communiqu\u00e9 de presse sur le \u201cpaquet retours\u201d du 11 mars<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Nouvelle approche commune de l’UE en mati\u00e8re de retours : risques et violations des droits humains<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Alors que la Commission europ\u00e9enne (CE) d\u00e9voile aujourd\u2019hui, 11 mars, sa \u00ab nouvelle approche commune sur les retours \u00bb, visant \u00e0 acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer les retours vers les pays d\u2019origine et de transit, les organisations de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile (OSC) soussign\u00e9es expriment leurs inqui\u00e9tudes quant aux implications en mati\u00e8re de droits humains que ces propositions entra\u00eeneraient.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Probl\u00e8mes li\u00e9s au concept de pays tiers s\u00fbr<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    La proposition comprendra probablement une nouvelle directive ou un nouveau r\u00e8glement sur le retour, rempla\u00e7ant ainsi la proposition de 2018 sur la refonte de la directive 2008\/115\/CE (la directive retour), des dispositions sur les \u00ab centres de retour \u00bb et la r\u00e9vision du concept de pays tiers s\u00fbr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    EuroMed Droits <\/a>s\u2019oppose depuis longtemps<\/a> au concept de \u00ab pays tiers s\u00fbr \u00bb et de \u00ab pays d\u2019origine s\u00fbr \u00bb car il est contraire \u00e0 l\u2019esprit de la Convention relative au statut des r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s qui pr\u00e9voit l\u2019examen individuel de chaque demande d\u2019asile : chaque situation personnelle est unique et aucun pays n\u2019est exempt de violation des droits individuels et des droits humains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cependant, les pays ont de plus en plus recours \u00e0 ces concepts pour accro\u00eetre les retours de personnes demandant l\u2019asile en Europe. L\u2019Italie, par exemple, <\/a>a mis \u00e0 jour<\/a> en 2024 sa liste de \u00ab pays d\u2019origine s\u00fbrs \u00bb pour y inclure l\u2019\u00c9gypte et la Tunisie, malgr\u00e9 les nombreuses violations des droits humains document\u00e9es perp\u00e9tr\u00e9es dans ces deux pays et le fait que l’\u00c9gypte, par exemple, n’est pas signataire de la Convention des Nations unies pour la protection de toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forc\u00e9es.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dans le cadre de la r\u00e9vision prochaine du concept de \u00ab pays tiers s\u00fbr \u00bb dans le r\u00e8glement sur les proc\u00e9dures d’asile, les organisations soussign\u00e9es s’inqui\u00e8tent de la volont\u00e9 de l’UE d’abaisser le seuil de protection offert par un pays tiers et d’\u00e9liminer les crit\u00e8res de connexion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Seuil de protection inf\u00e9rieur<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dans la cadre de l\u2019adoption du Pacte UE sur la migration et l\u2019asile en 2024, le r\u00e8glement sur les proc\u00e9dures d’asile a d\u00e9j\u00e0 abaiss\u00e9 le seuil de protection qu\u2019un pays tiers doit fournir en introduisant le concept de \u00ab protection effective \u00bb, qui est une protection inf\u00e9rieure \u00e0 celle pr\u00e9vue par la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s. Cela permettra de facto detention. <\/em>aux \u00c9tats membres de l\u2019UE de consid\u00e9rer un pays qui n\u2019est pas signataire de la Convention sur les r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s comme \u00ab s\u00fbr \u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Par exemple, cela pourrait \u00eatre appliqu\u00e9 dans le contexte du Liban <\/strong>, qui n\u2019est pas signataire de la Convention mais est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme \u00ab s\u00fbr \u00bb par Chypre , <\/strong>qui a d\u00e9j\u00e0 proc\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 des refoulements violents et ill\u00e9gauxde demandeurs.ses d\u2019asile syrien.ne.s. Chypre a d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 <\/a>condamn\u00e9e<\/a> par la Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits humains en octobre 2024 dans l\u2019affaire <\/a>MA AND ZR c. CHYPRE (requ\u00eate n\u00b0 39090\/20).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Crit\u00e8re de connexion<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Malgr\u00e9 le fait que le HCR, dans ses <\/a>consid\u00e9rations juridiques<\/a> dans le contexte des pays tiers s\u00fbrs, ait soulign\u00e9 l’importance d’un lien <\/em>entre le demandeur.se d’asile et le pays tiers – par exemple des s\u00e9jours ant\u00e9rieurs ou la pr\u00e9sence de membres de la famille ou de liens \u00e9troits dans le pays – on peut craindre que les \u00c9tats membres de l’UE d\u00e9cident de supprimer le crit\u00e8re de connexion dans leur r\u00e9vision du concept de \u00ab pays tiers s\u00fbr \u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cela laissera une grande marge de man\u0153uvre aux \u00c9tats membres pour renvoyer les demandeurs.ses d\u2019asile vers des pays tiers sans avoir le moindre lien avec ce pays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Violations des droits humains<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dans de nombreux pays consid\u00e9r\u00e9s comme \u00ab s\u00fbrs \u00bb et avec lesquels l\u2019UE a r\u00e9cemment sign\u00e9 des accords controvers\u00e9s visant \u00e0 freiner les flux migratoires, comme <\/a>la Tunisie<\/a> , <\/a>le Liban<\/a> et <\/a>l\u2019\u00c9gypte<\/a> , la situation des droits humains et de l\u2019\u00c9tat de droit se d\u00e9grade rapidement. En Tunisie<\/strong>, les r\u00e9centes \u00e9lections ont scell\u00e9 l\u2019emprise autoritaire du pr\u00e9sident tandis que la situation des migrant.e.s et des r\u00e9fugi\u00e9.e.s est <\/a>alarmante<\/a> , avec des rapports faisant \u00e9tat d\u2019expulsions massives, de discours de haine et d\u2019agressions physiques en augmentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    En \u00c9gypte<\/strong>, la r\u00e9pression contre la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile, les d\u00e9fenseurs.ses des droits humains et de la dissidence pacifique en ligne et hors ligne – qui concerne toute personne se trouvant sur le territoire \u00e9gyptien -, les arrestations arbitraires, les d\u00e9tentions massives et les ex\u00e9cutions extrajudiciaires demeurent des pr\u00e9occupations majeures. La <\/a>loi nationale sur l\u2019asile r\u00e9cemment adopt\u00e9e<\/a> va consid\u00e9rablement aggraver la situation d\u00e9j\u00e0 difficile des personnes demandeuses d\u2019asile et r\u00e9fugi\u00e9es dans le pays, o\u00f9 des arrestations massives arbitraires, des d\u00e9tentions et des retours forc\u00e9s de r\u00e9fugi\u00e9.e.s soudanais.es, entre autres, ont \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9cemment <\/a>signal\u00e9s<\/a> . Dans leur communication sur la loi sur l’asile en \u00c9gypte<\/a>, les proc\u00e9dures sp\u00e9ciales des Nations Unies ont exprim\u00e9 de s\u00e9rieuses inqui\u00e9tudes quant \u00e0 l’impact que cette loi aurait sur les droits humains des personnes migrantes, demandeuses d’asile et r\u00e9fugi\u00e9es, et ont indiqu\u00e9 que \u00ab si elle \u00e9tait adopt\u00e9e, elle ne respecterait pas de mani\u00e8re significative les droits humains internationaux, le droit des r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s et d’autres normes pertinentes \u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    En conclusion<\/strong>, ce que propose l\u2019UE serait une nouvelle tentative de s\u2019\u00e9loigner toujours plus des politiques de migration et d\u2019asile fond\u00e9es sur les droits, poursuivant ainsi la tendance \u00e0 l\u2019externalisation qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 un \u00e9chec complet, comme le r\u00e9cent <\/a>accord Italie-Albanie<\/a> , et qui conduit \u00e0 des morts<\/a>, des graves violations de droits humains et des souffrances sans fin.  <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Signataires :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Tamkeen for legal aid and human rights (Jordanie)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. ARCI<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. \u0130HD – Human Rights Association (Turkey)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Ir\u00eddia (Spain)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. Novact (Spain)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    6. Conseil Grec pour les R\u00e9fugi\u00e9s (GCR)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    7. CEAR<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    8. CNCD-\u00a011.11.11<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    9. Ligue des Droits de l\u2019Homme (LDH)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    10. CS-LADDH<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    11. Fondation pour la promotion des droits<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    12. Association\u00a0tunisienne des Femmes D\u00e9mocrates\u00a0(ATFD)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    13. Centre for Peace Studies Croatia<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    14. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    15. Safe Passage International<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    16. KISA<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    17. La Fondation pour la promotion des droits<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    18. EuroMed Droits<\/li>\n<\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      New EU common approach on returns: Risks and human rights violations As the European Commission (EC) unveils its so-called \u201cnew common approach on returns\u201d today, 11 March, aimed at speeding up returns to countries of origin and transit, the undersigned civil society organisations (CSOs) raise concerns about the human rights implications that these proposals would […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":9953,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-press-releases"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10858"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10858\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10859,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10858\/revisions\/10859"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9953"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}