EU hotspots relocation and absconded within a failing

Eu Hotspots Relocation And Absconded Within A Failing-Free PDF

  • Date:20 Nov 2020
  • Views:8
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:8
  • Size:319.15 KB

Share Pdf : Eu Hotspots Relocation And Absconded Within A Failing

Download and Preview : Eu Hotspots Relocation And Absconded Within A Failing

Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Eu Hotspots Relocation And Absconded Within A Failing


Policy brief n 2017 03, question the legitimacy of such cooperation and the Libyan regulation incentivising secondary movements of irregular. internal situation remains extremely volatile This makes it hard migrants to other Member States The establishment of. to predict a stable EU Libya migration cooperation modelled so called hotspots in Mediterranean Member States is. after the EU Turkey statement In addition migratory routes supposed to prevent these practices Migration management. seem to have already shifted westwards with more people now support teams that include staff from various EU agencies the. departing from Tunisia to land undetected in Lampedusa or the European Asylum Support Office EASO Frontex and Europol. rest of Sicily IOM 2017 support the Italian law enforcement authorities in dealing. with first identification and status definition of migrants COM. We thus ask whether EU measures can effectively support. 2015 240 6 Teams of EU officials are available and work. migration management in Italy Among others the limitation of. in selected disembarking ports There many of those rescued. migrant absconding and onward movements in the Schengen. at sea are landed by state or private carriers according to the. area serve as a proxy for achieving EU policy objectives In. indications given by the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre. this regard we analyse data on the implementation of the. MRCC of Rome run by the Italian Coast Guard Cuttitta. EU hotspots in Sicily the relocation mechanism and the. 2017 11 The establishment of hotspots and designated. asylum system in Italy We also conducted few interviews. disembarking ports attempt at combining the humanitarian. with officials and observers to substantiate the findings Our. objective of offering first reception with the functions of the. research shows that the effectiveness of support measures. border the control of entry and registration of the migrants. is limited also because of issues related to policy design and. identity In this process the admissibility of the migrant to. compliance As a consequence Italian authorities maintain. the asylum procedure or their return to the country of origin is. practices circumventing their obligations towards the CEAS. determined Ministero dell Interno 2017 Overall hotspots are. This purposeful non compliance seems to be the political. meant to bring order and EU oversight into the management of. trade off between Italy EU institutions and other Member. arrivals at the EU external border, States for a Dublin system that puts disproportional strain on. Italy ENM 2015 Triandafyllidou and Dimitriadi 2014 To us. The ill designed EU relocation mechanism cannot, however this trade off seems to be unsustainable in the long. undo the failure of Dublin, run The informal management of secondary movements has. extremely high political costs that risk undermining the whole Italy faces the double burden of controlling the external EU. Schengen system This is why we suggest measures that border and running asylum procedures in accordance with. tackle the absconding of irregular migrants in Italy by reducing the first country of asylum principle determined in the Dublin. the double burden of Italian authorities in controlling the EU regulation 604 2013 The establishment of EU hotspots. external border and providing for asylum seekers reception aimed at partly taking off this double burden from the. frontline countries by channelling migrants into a relocation. EU support measures for frontline states mechanism In fact this temporary mechanism was a response. to uneven refugee distribution in the EU and also an effect of. The European Agenda for Migration from 2015 called for. a Dublin regulation that despite reform efforts does not yet. the better support of frontline states in receiving irregular. include Southern Member States call for sharing the burden. migrants and asylum seekers the systematic identification. of hosting refugees The relocation scheme was effective for. of new arrivals by registration of their biometric data in the. two years 2015 to 2017 but had serious design problems that. EURODAC system and a more evenly distribution of asylum. contradicted the idea of supporting frontline states and the. seekers among EU Member States COM 2015 240 Until, hotspot system To name the most important problem the.
late 2015 only a small percentage roughly one third of those. eligibility for relocation depended on the nationality of the. reaching Italy from its shores were properly identified COM. migrants and their latest recognition rates for international. 2016 Here non registration signified the purposeful non. protection in the EU Only if this rate was above 75 per cent. compliance of various Italian governments with the Dublin. the migrant qualified for relocation to another EU member. Policy brief n 2017 03, state Council Decisions EU 2015 1523 and 2015 1601 Art and the rest of Southern Italy Despite the support that was. 3 According to recognition rates from 2017 only Syrians and provided by EU agencies as well as EU financial contributions. Eritreans were eligible for relocation In contrast migrants the task of detaining non admissible asylum seekers their. from Afghanistan Iraq Iran Sudan or Somalia could not be return as well as the obligation to provide for an asylum. considered Eurostat 2017 The 75 per cent threshold did not procedure mainly remain the responsibility of Italy i e law. only limit the application of the relocation mechanism but enforcement authorities and the military We researched how. also contradicted the reality that Italian authorities are still Italy deals with these multiple challenges and how the country. facing Most irregular migrants rescued in the Strait of Sicily provides for the asylum procedure and eventual return of. and brought to disembark at one of the ports of the island those that do not receive any international protection in Italy. are of a nationality that does not qualify for relocation In fact. Eritreans the main nationality qualifying for relocation in Italy Institutions in Italy ill functioning. only represented 3 6 per cent of all arrivals in December and. Given the involvement of EU agencies in the registration and. January of 2016 17 COM 2017 74 2, identification process Italian authorities are left with little room. An additional major problem of the scheme was the slow for non compliance with the Dublin regulation The Member. response of member states to accept relocation We identify State can hardly shirk its responsibility as the first country. non compliance with the two Council decisions on relocation of asylum for boat people In fact the European Parliament. Council Decision EU 2015 1523 of 14 September 2015 reports that fingerprinting in Italy has risen to almost 100 per. and Council Decision 2015 1601 of 22 September 2015 cent EP 2016 10 Thus the former practice of purposeful. From roughly 40 000 places allocated for Italy in September non compliance by non registration was abolished However. 2015 only 9 754 migrants had been relocated until October evidence suggests that Italian authorities still aim at limiting. 2017 The implementation of the scheme picked up faster in the number of people entering the national protection system. 2017 compared to none or slow response in 2016 However by way of issuing deferral of entry orders. some countries openly rejected the scheme or asked for. Corresponding to the opening of the first hotspots in Sicily. exemptions We find that the hotspot can only function as a. a significant increase in the number of deferred refusal of. migration management tool if it is able to channel irregular. entry orders was recorded Such an order is addressed to. migrants into procedures for asylum relocation or return. many of those unauthorised migrants apprehended at the. The idea of channelling was blocked by stringent eligibility. border who do not apply for asylum According to Italian law. criteria slow member state response to relocation and the. enforcement such orders are issued immediately after rescue. fact that the number of arrivals way exceeds the registration. or disembarkation Individuals that receive the order to leave. and detention capacity of the four Italian hotspots located in. are not registered nor do they remain in the hotspots since. Pozzallo Trapani Lampedusa and Taranto COM 2017 74 9. the order states that the person had no right to cross the. In the first quarter of 2017 more than 35 000 migrants arrived. border As a consequence they are set free with the obligation. in Sicily via the Central Mediterranean route counting for an. to leave the country within 7 days Between the 1 September. average of almost 3 000 people per week Of course these. 2015 and the 13 January 2016 about 18 per cent of the. numbers fluctuate and seem to have decreased in the second. 4 597 persons that went through the hotspot in Lampedusa. quarter of 2017 However the hotspots can only receive 1 600. were given such orders The Special Commission for the. migrants at a time while registration takes weeks Dutch. Protection and Promotion of Human Rights of the Italian. Council for Refugees 2016, Senate expressed its concern for the sudden increase in the. Taking the policy design and compliance problems with use of such orders according to a report it had issued in 2017. relocation into account the four operating EU hotspots in Senato della Repubblica 2017 In a previous report from. Sicily and Apulia can hardly deliver on lifting pressure from the 2016 the same Commission stated that besides increasing. Italian authorities and de congest reception facilities in Sicily the rate of registrations the only other tangible result of the. Policy brief n 2017 03, establishment of the hotspot system was a substantial waiting to cross into Austria and France Statewatch. growth of the number of deferred refusals of entry due to few Observatory 2016 Another indicator for the ill functioning. relocations Senato della Repubblica 2016 of the asylum system in Italy is the exponential development. of requests for Dublin transfers In 2016 Italy received by far. Not only the increase in issuance but also the rapidity with. most take charge and take back requests 64 844 of asylum. which these orders were released generated further concerns. seekers apprehended in other Member States Two thirds of. to the extent that the practice was denounced as illegal by. these requests were justified as take back requests A take. many NGOs but also by members of the Italian Parliament. back request means that the asylum claim of the migrant is. McMahon 2016 Camera dei Deputati 2016 The organisations. still under investigation or has been rejected in the country of. criticised that asylum applications were assessed collectively. first entry Requests addressed to Italy rose by 1 460 per cent. based on declared nationality Both in Pozzallo and Taranto. comparing the number of requests from 2008 4 447 to 2016. migrants were given these orders even before they could. 64 844 Datamarket 2017, apply for asylum and before they received adequate legal.
assistance A report of the Italian Parliament links the increase This data clearly shows that today the Italian asylum system. in the issuing of such orders explicitly to recently introduced cannot cope with the amount of people seeking protection. directives issued by the Italian Ministry of Interior Camera in the country let alone those entering for other reasons. dei Deputati 2015 For this reason the Department of Civil than international protection The data also raises concerns. Liberties of the Italian Ministry of the Interior had to reprimand about the applicability of the Dublin regulation at a time when. the Italian police with an internal memo calling for a limit on Italy has limited incentives and means to comply with EU. the use of such orders and treating all asylum applications on obligations A situation that has certainly not improved with. an individual basis Consiglio Italiano per i Rifugiati 2016 the recent reform of the asylum reception system introduced. by the Italian Minister of Interior Marco Minniti in April 2017. The rapid increase in deferred refusal of entry orders has. In fact the change in legislation introduced cutting the time. several explanations Among other factors by issuing deferred. foreseen to examine asylum requests and the right to legal. refusal of entry orders Italian authorities are able to keep. assistance in appealing decisions Virgo 2017 Arguably this. many unregistered and out of the Italian reception system. will increase the number of rejected applications with even. thus decreasing the burden on reception In fact those who. more individuals receiving an order of expulsion that will not. did not receive a deferred refusal of entry order will enter the. be executed, Italian reception system either as asylum seekers or in case no. application for asylum is submitted simply as undocumented. Concluding recommendations, migrants As for undocumented migrants and those whose. asylum application is rejected they will enter detention until Summing up the analysis of implementation of EU hotspots. they receive an expulsion order and the asylum system in Italy we conclude that the country. maintains shirking its obligations towards Dublin and the. It is important to note that few of those that receive the. migrant absconding and onward movements in the Schengen area serve as a proxy for achieving EU policy objectives In this regard we analyse data on the implementation of the EU hotspots in Sicily the relocation mechanism and the asylum system in Italy We also conducted few interviews with officials and observers to substantiate the findings Our research shows that the effectiveness of

Related Books