MIGRATION:

KEY FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS CONCERNS 1.7.2020  30.9.2020

QUARTERLY BULLETIN

3 Key fundamental rights concerns

8 Legal developments
12 Policy developments
13 Situation at the border
21 Asylum procedure
24 Reception
28 Child protection
32 Immigration detention
35 Return
38 Hate speech and violent crime

40 ANNEX – Stakeholders contacted

for information (September 2020)

DISCLAIMER: This report is a summary of country reports prepared by the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)’s contracted research network, FRANET. It contains
descriptive data based on interviews and desk research and does not include analyses
or conclusions. This report is made publicly available for information and transparency
EU Charter of
purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. The report does not
Migration Children Hate crime Fundamental Rights
necessarily reflect the views or official position of FRA.
The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has been regularly collecting data on asylum and
migration since September 2015. This report focuses on the fundamental rights situation
of people arriving in Member States and EU candidate countries particularly affected by
migration. It addresses fundamental rights concerns between 1 July and 30 September 2020.

THE COUNTRIES
COVERED ARE:
Sweden

Denmark

the Netherlands

Germany Poland
Belgium

France
Austria
Hungary

Croatia

Serbia

Spain Bulgaria
Italy
North
Macedonia

Greece

Cyprus
Malta

2
Key fundamental rights concerns

Key emerging fundamental rights concerns

In Greece, on 8 and 9 September, fires destroyed the Moria camp on Lesvos and
the surrounding informal settlements, leaving approximately 12,000 people without
a shelter. The Ministry of Migration and Asylum alleges that asylum applicants
set the fires due to the quarantine imposed on the camp after some asylum
applicants tested positive for COVID-19. For UNHCR, the incidents demonstrate
the long-standing need to improve living conditions, alleviate overcrowding, and
improve security, infrastructure and access to services in all five reception centres
on the Greek islands.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights called on the Greek
authorities to provide adequate support to all those affected. She highlighted
the need to address unresolved issues relating to the treatment of asylum seekers
and refugees and found the lack of European solidarity in terms of relocation to
have contributed to the catastrophic situation.

Following the fire in Moria, the European Commission announced the establishment
of a dedicated task force to improve the situation on Lesvos in a durable way.
The task force will implement a joint pilot with the Greek authorities for new
reception facilities and help manage migration in an effective way, by ensuring
adequate living conditions, faster procedures and more balanced responsibility
sharing and solidarity.

Meanwhile, when many protested to leave the island, the police used tear gas to
break up the protests, according to media reports.

An emergency site was set up within days in Mavrovouni to temporarily house

affected asylum applicants. By 8 October, some 7,800 were hosted in the new
temporary site. Several hundred vulnerable people, including unaccompanied
children, were transferred to safe accommodation on the island or to the mainland.

UNHCR highlighted the need for a comprehensive response that goes beyond
short-term solutions, ensuring adequate reception conditions, access to fair and
fast asylum procedures, integration opportunities for those granted asylum and
swift returns for those not in need of international protection.

UNHCR also pointed out the gaps in drainage, water, sanitation, hygiene and health
services at the emergency site. The site, essentially a tented camp, is located near
the seashore. This means it is exposed to challenging weather conditions and safety
hazards. Some of the tents flooded after heavy rains on 8 October and 13 October.
At the same time, the Greek authorities announced the closure of Kara Tepe and
PIKPA, two facilities offering dignified accommodation to vulnerable people. More
than 160 NGOs and academics urged the Greek authorities to revoke this decision.
Note on sources
The evidence presented in this
In Malta, detention conditions continue to deteriorate, as reported by the media report is based on information
and NGOs KOPIN and the African Media Association. A video recording from available in the public domain
(with hyperlinks to the references
24 August at the Safi migrant centre shows migrants held in cramped, unsanitary
embedded on the relevant text)
bunk beds, with limited clothing, sanitation, clean water and toilets. The detainees
or on information provided orally
say they are not able to talk to their family or a doctor. They also say that they or via e-mail by institutions and
do not know why, or for how long, they are being held. other organisations, as indicated
in the Annex.

3
 During a riot at the detention centre at Safi on 18 September, five migrants escaped
and one was shot by a security guard, who was nearby in his car and used his
personal weapon. The security guard was charged with attempted murder and
released on bail on 19 September. Ten migrants who were reported to have escaped
from the Safi detention centre in July were sentenced to six months in prison.

Meanwhile, on 2 September, a migrant died trying to leave the Ħal Far centre.

In Hungary, detainees at the pre-removal detention centre in Nyírbátor held a

hunger strike in early August for ten days, to protest against the lack of information,
the Hungarian Helsinki Committee reported. Detainees stated that the authorities
did not properly inform them why they were being held and that civil society
organisations had no access to them.

In Austria, the Ministry of the Interior reported challenges in accommodating

asylum applicants, since COVID-19 prevention measures require lower occupancy
and separate accommodation. All newly arriving persons are tested twice and
isolated until the test result is available. As of 25 September, 118 asylum applicants
tested positive for COVID-19. A positive test result implies that many parts of
the entire facility cannot be used for the duration of the quarantine. Austria thus
opened new reception facilities in Villach (Carinthia) in May 2020, as well as in
Vienna. The occupancy of federal reception facilities rose from 1,000 during the
previous reporting period to around 1,600 to 1,700 persons on 25 September 2020.

In Poland, the government announced that it will provide accommodation, medical

care and food to Belarusians seeking international protection. In 2020, the number
of Belarusians seeking asylum in Poland increased, with 152 new applications by
the end of September 2020 (compared to 37 in all of 2019). The Polish government
introduced humanitarian visas for Belarusians, with many Polish consulates
issuing such visas from mid-August 2020 onwards. A draft law, if adopted, will
soon allow holders of such visas to obtain a work permit and prolong their stay
in Poland, without applying for international protection.

On 17 September 2020, an amendment to the regulation on the temporary

suspension or restriction of border traffic at certain border crossing points entered
into force, allowing Belarusian citizens to enter Poland holding a tourists visa to
cross the border. On September 2020, another amendment to the same regulation
allowed all Belarusian citizens to enter the country, regardless of the basis on
which they intend to cross the border. A government proposal for a regulation on
granting temporary protection to Belarusians is under consideration. According
to the Office for Foreigners, Belarusians constitute the second-largest group of
foreigners in Poland, with 28,000 currently holding residence permits.

In Spain, the National Ombudsperson expressed concerns about the rights of

migrant workers in the agricultural sector. The Ombudsperson called on public
administrations, employers and agricultural organisations to adopt coordinated
and urgent solutions to address the inhuman conditions under which these
workers live. According to the media, the Ombudsperson requested the State
Prosecutor’s Office for information on the investigations initiated after the death
of a Nicaraguan citizen while working in a farm in the province of Murcia. The
request also highlighted the difficulties that the deceased person had encountered
in formalising his asylum request. The NGO Accem condemned the dire conditions
suffered by seasonal migrant workers employed in the agricultural sector. Whereas
the situation has gained visibility in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
organisation reports that these issues are of a structural nature in Spain.

4
In Sweden, the inter-party committee of inquiry (parlamentarisk kommitté), set up
to develop a sustainable migration policy, proposed 26 changes to the Alien Act.
Among them, the committee recommends issuing temporary residence permits to
beneficiaries of international protection as a general rule and permanent permits
only to resettled refugees. Residence permits should remain limited to three years
for refugees and 13 months for subsidiary protection status holders, extendable
by two years subject to a new assessment. To get permanent residence permits,
beneficiaries would need to show civic education skills, ability to provide for
themselves and, already as of the age of 15, so-called ‘good repute’, i.e. a criminal
record copy (vandelskrav).

Civil society organisations expressed concern over the proposed restrictions and
their likely impact on individuals’ mental health and their ability to integrate. The
proposals will increase legal uncertainty for beneficiaries, the Red Cross noted.
The government will consult national authorities and other stakeholders before
developing a draft bill, which will have to undergo legal scrutiny by the Council
of Legislation (Lagrådet) before going to the parliament.

In France, the prefect of Pas-de-Calais issued an order to prevent “health risks

and disturbances to public order”, banning civil society organisations not mandated
by the government from distributing free drinks and food in Calais. A group of 13
NGOs, including La Cimade, Médecins du Monde and the League for Human Rights
took legal action seeking the suspension of this measure, on account of violations
of the right to human dignity, the principle of fraternity, and the possibility of
assisting others. The Lille Administrative Court rejected the application and the
Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) upheld the verdict on appeal. The Public Defender
of Rights also submitted observations before the court, arguing that, by depriving
migrants of access to goods and services (distribution of meals), the disputed
measure discriminates on the basis of nationality, which is prohibited by law.

Key persisting fundamental rights concerns

In Greece, the situation in Moria (Lesvos) and Vathy (Samos) further deteriorated
when these were put under quarantine after camp residents tested positive for
COVID-19. A few days after Moria burned down, fires also broke out in Samos, one
inside the Reception and Identification Center. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)
highlighted the critical situation in Vathy camp, stating that some 4,500 persons
remain stranded there, while more than 1,000 children live next to rubbish, rats
and scorpions. MSF warned that the asylum applicants’ physical and mental health
was rapidly deteriorating and called for their transfer to safe accommodation in
the mainland or to other EU Member States.

In Greece, according to Médecins Sans Frontières, an increasing number of

recognised refugees with severe health conditions face eviction or have already
been evicted from their accommodation as asylum applicants. Refugees still sleep
rough in Victoria Square in central Athens. Due to lack of prospects, in September,
approximately 400 refugees who were transferred to the mainland returned to
Lesvos, as ECRE noted.

In Italy, the disembarkation of migrants in the Sicilian ports remains a persisting

concern. The Italian Prime Minister and the Ministry of the Interior provided
three quarantine vessels in addition to the two – the ‘Raffaele Rubattino’ and
the ‘Moby Zazà’ – already in use. This gradually reduced the number of people in
the Lampedusa hotspot. A high-level meeting in Lampedusa concluded that the
hotspot must be refurbished and that quarantine vessels to host migrants arriving
on their own to Lampedusa should be present in the port to avoid overcrowding
in the hotspot.

5
 In Malta, alleged pushbacks to Libya and delays in disembarking rescued migrants
and refugees remain a persisting concern. According to the NGO Sea-Watch, in the
Maltese search-and-rescue area, a Libyan Coast Guard ship took back a group of
approximately 110 persons on 15 August. Several other NGOs, such as Amnesty
International, KOPIN and the African Media Association, also expressed concern
over pushbacks and related cooperation with Libya. The Maltese government
announced plans to charter a ship to quarantine migrants. A press release refers
to the ship as to be used “when the armed forces of Malta have no choice but to
rescue people who are sinking”.

In Cyprus, UNHCR and the Cyprus Refugee Council reported delays in or lack of
registration of newly arriving persons, preventing access to accommodation and
food. Access to healthcare remains fragmented, problematic and with significant
delays for asylum applicants, third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking,
and migrants in an irregular situation, as reported by the Cyprus Refugee Council
to FRA.

Migrant smuggling remained a persisting concern in Hungary, with a continued

increase of detected cases in the reporting period, especially as the COVID-19-
related border restrictions have been gradually lifted. According to the police,
the authorities took 130 human smugglers into custody in the reporting period
(compared to 52 in May and June 2020). In most cases, people were smuggled in the
boots of cars, the cargo space of lorries, as well as cargo wagons of trains crossing
the border from Serbia and Romania. Several people were also apprehended in
the fields close to the Serbian-Hungarian border. Two new underground tunnels
close to the border towns of Katymár and Mórahalom, alongside a semi-finished
one in the outskirts of the town of Bácsbokod, were also discovered along the
border fence at the border with Serbia.

In Bulgaria, poor living conditions in the pre-removal facilities, the ineffective

implementation of the legislation on integration of status holders, and the lack of
qualified interpreters remain issues of concern, as reported by the State Agency
for Refugees and UNHCR Bulgaria.

In Spain, the National Ombudsperson reported before the Senate on persisting

issues concerning age-assessment in detention. In particular, the Ombudsperson
noted inconsistencies in the medical tests conducted for age assessment procedures,
as well as excessive delays in DNA tests conducted at the Internment Centres for
Foreigners (CIEs) and the Temporary Stay Centres for Immigrants (CETIs), which
may result in the separation of families and summary expulsions.

In France, persistent problems included: increasing dangerous sea crossings via

the Channel to the United Kingdom; summary returns and the denial of access
to the asylum procedure by the police at the alpine border between France
and Italy; re-appearing informal camps in the North of France and in Paris, and
further deteriorating living conditions for people staying there; as well as the
widespread use of immigration detention, including for children, despite the
absence of reasonable prospects of removal due to COVID-19-related restrictions
on international flights, several NGOs, the Public Defender of Rights and the
Maritime Prefecture of the Channel and the North Sea pointed out to FRA.

6
In Belgium, a group of NGOs took legal action against the government and the
federal asylum authority (Fedasil), demanding that asylum applicants have access
to the reception system from the moment they first request asylum. Media sources
reported that courts have already condemned Fedasil over a thousand times in
2020 for failing to provide access to the asylum reception system.
Bright spots
In Sweden, the Migration Agency
In Germany, restrictions due to COVID-19 continue to have a major impact on resumed providing daily allowances
refugees’ integration prospects, according to information provided to FRA by the to rejected asylum seekers who
Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family, the Federal Association cannot be returned for COVID-
for Unaccompanied Minors, Berlin and the Federal Working Group of Psycho-Social 19-related reasons, easing their
precarious situation.
Support Centres for Refugees and Victims of Torture. For example, contacts are
restricted; refugees are met with greater caution due to presumed travel-related
risks; and many authorities and offices ( job centres, immigration offices, social
welfare offices) are more difficult to reach, resulting in deadlines being missed
and thus delaying family reunification or access to the labour market.

In Sweden, refugees granted residence permits under the upper secondary

education law (gymnasielagen) can extend their residence if they find full-time
jobs within six months. Since this remains particularly difficult in times of COVID-19,
several interviewed organisations expressed concern to FRA about the insecurity
for this vulnerable group.

In the Netherlands, asylum applicants continue to face long waiting times before
the start of the asylum procedure. According to media and the Dutch Refugee
Council, the task force set up by the authorities to address the backlog of asylum
applications is not effective. The task force intends to deal with 14,000 overdue
asylum applications by the end of 2020. The issues highlighted include lack of
training of the employees and delays in the provision of information to asylum
applicants. According to the media, the identification and registration of newly
arrived asylum applicants stalled due to staff shortages at the application centre
in Ter Apel.

In North Macedonia, collective expulsions at the border with Greece continue,

according to authorities and NGOs interviewed by FRA in North Macedonia,
including the Ombudsperson, the NGO Legis, the Jesuit Refugee Service ( JRS)
and the NGO EUROTHINK.

Reported pushbacks from Serbia to North Macedonia more than doubled from
July to August – from 10 to 22 cases – according to UNHCR. NGOs continued to
witness third-country nationals in need of international protection being removed
from Hungary to Serbia even if they never resided in nor arrived from Serbia.
They further report arbitrary conduct by EU police forces at the border, sometimes
including violence. The NGO Humanitarian Center for Integration and Tolerance
collected information on 563 pushback incidents from neighbouring countries –
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, and Romania – to Serbia between July
and September. These incidents involved 7,809 third-country nationals – 2,487 in
July; 2,230 in August; and 3,092 in September.

7
 Legal developments

Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

A preliminary ruling requested by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands

(JZ – C-806/18) concerned the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC). The CJEU
ruled that it does not preclude imposing a prison sentence on migrants subject
to a return decision and for whom an entry ban has been issued based on their
criminal record or for representing a threat to public policy or national security,
but who have not actually left the territory of the given Member State. The CJEU
clarified, however, that the criminal conviction should be based on the offence of
over-staying, in contravention to the return decision, and not the violation of the
prohibition to re-enter, as entry bans start producing their effect only after the
returnee has left the territory of the Member State. The CJEU also stressed that
national criminal law should comply with the criteria of accessibility, precision and
foreseeability in its application, to avoid the risk of arbitrariness, in accordance
with the standards guaranteed by the ECHR, whose respect should be assessed
by the referring national court.

In a preliminary ruling requested by a labour court in Belgium  (B. v. Centre public

d’action sociale de Liège – C-233/19), the CJEU interpreted Articles 5 and 13 of
the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC) in light of Article 19 (2) (prohibition
of refoulement) and Article 47 (right to an effective remedy) of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights. The CJEU concluded that a national court, hearing a dispute on
social assistance involving an irregular migrant subject to return who is suffering
from a serious illness, is obliged to automatically suspend the return decision,
when there is reasonable ground to believe that the individual’s health would
irreversibly deteriorate as a consequence of the return. The CJEU underlined that
the primacy of EU law requires national courts to comply with this obligation even
when this is not envisaged in the national legislation, if no other remedies entailing
the automatic suspension of the return decision are available to the individual.

Milkiyas Addis v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-517/17) concerned a preliminary

ruling requested by the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, related to an
Eritrean national who was granted international protection in Italy but later travelled
to Germany and submitted a new asylum application there. The German authorities
rejected the application as inadmissible without conducting a personal interview,
because he had arrived from Italy, considered a safe country. The CJEU clarified
that the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU) always requires granting
applicants for international protection a personal interview before a decision on
their case is adopted, including inadmissibility decisions. The CJEU further noted
that asylum decisions taken without a prior personal interview should be annulled.

In a preliminary ruling requested by the Council of State of Belgium (B. M. M., B.

S., B. M., B. M. O. v. État belge – joined cases C-133/19, C-136/19 and C-137/19), the
CJEU ruled that the date used to assess the age of applicants for family reunification
under the Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EC) is the date of submission
of the application and not the date on which the competent authority takes its
decision on the request. Accordingly, the Family Reunification Directive, read in
light of Article 47 (right to an effective remedy) of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, precludes the rejection of an application as inadmissible only because a
child applicant has reached majority during the proceedings.

8
Case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

N.H. and others v. France concerns five asylum applicants who were forced to
live on the streets for several months in precarious living conditions, without
access to sanitary facilities and with no means of meeting their basic needs. The
ECtHR noted that, although the applicants had a right to material and financial
support under the Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU), they
had not been able to benefit from it due to a delay of more than three months in
the registration of their asylum application. The ECtHR concluded that the French
authorities were responsible for the inhuman and degrading living conditions in
which three of the applicants found themselves, in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

In M.K. and Others v. Poland, several Russian nationals fleeing from Chechnya
complained about the systematic refusalof Polish border guards to examine their
application for international protection submitted at the border with Belarus.
The ECtHR found that the refusal of entry into Poland pending the examination of
their claims violated the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR and
exposed the applicants to a real risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment.
The ECtHR also noted that the removal of the applicants without an individual
assessment of their claims amounted to collective expulsion, in violation of Article
4 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR. Additionally, the ECtHR found a violation of Article
13 of the ECHR, taken in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4,
because the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge
their refusal of entry. Finally, the ECtHR found that Poland violated Article 34 of the
ECHR by returning the applicants to Belarus, in violation of the interim measures
the court granted earlier in the proceedings.

In B.G. and others v. France, the ECtHR found that the living conditions in a tent
camp in France did not violate Article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of torture and
other forms of ill-treatment) because the French authorities had taken measures
to improve the material living conditions of the applicants and allowed them to
meet their basic needs. In particular, food, medical care and schooling for the
children were provided. Furthermore, the applicants were moved to a permanent
facility relatively quickly (three and a half months). Accordingly, the ECtHR ruled
that, although the camp was overcrowded and the sanitary conditions were
inadequate, the material deprivation suffered by the applicants did not reach the
threshold of severity necessary to violate Article 3 of the ECHR.

Decisions of United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies

In Opinion No. 22/2020 concerning Saman Ahmed Hamad (Hungary) (A/HRC/

WGAD/2020/22), the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that detaining
an asylum applicant in a transit zone at land borders, solely because he had
submitted an application for international protection, constituted an arbitrary
deprivation of liberty, in violation of several provisions of the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 (right to liberty) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In R.M. and F.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015), the UN Human Rights

Committee adopted its views on the risk of ill-treatment in a case involving the
removal of a husband, wife and their children, to Afghanistan. The Committee
noted that the couple had an extramarital relationship before they fled and got
married. Since this is a criminal offence punishable by death in Afghanistan, their
removal would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of Article
6 (right to life) and Article 7 (right to liberty) of the ICCPR.

9
 National legal developments

In Italy, the Italian Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 13 of the

Law-Decree No. 113/2018, which excludes asylum applicants from the right to be
enrolled in municipal civil registries, as this is a necessary requirement to access
many services and to get identity documents. According to the court, the contested
provision entails an unjustified difference in treatment between asylum seekers
and Italian citizens, as well as between asylum seekers and other categories of
third-country nationals legally residing on the Italian territory. On 14 August 2020,
the Ministry of the Interior issued Circular Letter No. 10/2020 – addressed to local
Prefects – implementing the court’s decision.

Malta amended its Refugees Act in August, changing the name of the Office
of the Refugee Commissioner into the International Protection Agency without
changing its mandate.

In Cyprus, the Parliament adopted a set of new laws implementing the new
immigration policy announced in June 2020. One of the new acts provides shorter
deadlines for applications of judicial review, reducing the timeline for appeals
before the Court of International Protection from 75 to 30 days, and in accelerated
procedures to 15 days. Another act provides for the speedy examination of
manifestly unfounded applications, issuing a negative asylum decision and a
return decision in a single administrative act.

In Croatia, a new bill on foreign nationals was submitted to the Parliament. The
NGO Centre for Peace Studies pointed out discrepancies with the Schengen Borders
Code, raised issues on access to remedies against the decisions of the Ministry of
Interior. It also noted that the bill can lead to arbitrary security checks, difficulties
in receiving temporary stay permits on humanitarian grounds, potential further
criminalisation of solidarity, and racial profiling.

In Austria, the Federal Minister of the Interior provided, on 13 July 2020, a list of
all legal amendments concerning border checks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Up to 4 June 2020, a total of 17 laws and regulations were passed, restricting entry
into the country, with few exceptions. The Federal Ministry of Social Affairs,
Health, Care and Consumer Protection and the Federal Ministry of European and
International Affairs summarised the travel restrictions currently in force since
the latest amendment. Entry from outside the EU and the Schengen area is still
generally prohibited.

In Bulgaria, a draft bill amending the Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act
(Закон за чужденците в Република България) suggests shortening deadlines
for the examination of appeals against pre-removal detention decisions. It also
explicitly forbids the return of persons to countries where they would face risks
to their life and freedom as well as risks of persecution, torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment.

UNHCR welcomed some of the suggested amendments. It also recommended

additional provisions (i) excluding the execution of return decisions in case
of pending appeal procedures; (ii) obliging the authorities to hear the person
before issuing a detention decision and to impose detention only as a last resort,
respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality;(iii) allowing access to
the labour market for persons not returned within a year after the issuance of the
return decision, and (iv) automatic release from pre-removal detention in case
an international protection application is submitted.

10
In Spain, two Supreme Court judgments (STS 2497/2020 and STS 2662/2020)
delivered in July 2020 addressed asylum seekers’ right to free movement. Both
judgments precluded the Ministry of Interior from restricting their travel from
Legal corner
Ceuta or Melilla to mainland Spain. After analysing pertinent domestic law and In Belgium, the Council for Alien
the EU Schengen acquis, the Supreme Court concluded that neither domestic Law Litigation held that a Dublin
nor EU law contain any provisions that justify limiting asylum seekers’ right to transferee not signing a declaration
move freely across Spanish territory. The judgments were welcomed by the NGO of voluntary return cannot be
Jesuit Migrant Service, which had previously criticised the Ministry of Interior’s considered as a lack of cooperation.
interpretation of the law in this regard. Thus, the Immigration Office cannot
prolong the transfer procedure solely
because an asylum applicant subject
In Germany, according to the NGO Proasyl, a draft law on supplementary preparatory
to a Dublin transfer did not return
detention (Gesetzesentwurf zur Regelung der Ergänzenden Vorbereitungshaft,
the document signed.
Section 62c AufenthG) would allow for detaining certain persons, including asylum
applicants, pending their removal. These include asylum applicants who are subject
to an entry ban and who present a significant danger to their own or others’ lives,
or to internal security; or who raise so-called ‘special removal interests’, such as
being involved in criminal offences. The Federal Association for Unaccompanied
Minors believes that the proposed change expands pre-removal detention without
a legal basis. They also criticise that individual assessments are excluded for
special removal interests and no exceptions or special safeguards are envisaged
for vulnerable groups, such as victims of trafficking in human beings or children.
Civil society organisations further criticised the extremely short timeframe for
providing comments to the draft law, which was only four working days during
the summer break.

In Sweden, according to a government bill amending the Aliens Act, third-country

nationals will have to be to fingerprinted and photographed at entry and exit
for checks against the Schengen Information System (SIS). The bill also seeks to
authorise the Swedish Migration Agency, the Swedish Police, the Swedish Customs
and the Coast Guards to take individuals’ photos and fingerprints for counter-
checking against data in SIS. Another government bill proposes to allow the Swedish
Migration Agency, the Swedish Police and Sweden’s diplomatic missions abroad
to process sensitive data under the Aliens Act, including to test and develop the
existing system of managing third-country nationals’ personal data.

In Sweden, the incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into
national law, which entered into force on 1 January 2020, has not resulted in
improvements for children in asylum procedures so far, according to Save the
Children and Stockholm City Mission said to FRA.

11
 Policy developments

On 23 September 2020, the European Commission published a new Pact on

Migration and Asylum. It sets out the Commission’s new approach to migration,
with a stronger focus on border procedures, and seeks to ensure more coherence
integrating the internal and external dimensions of migration and asylum policies.
The new Pact, which is a package of hard and soft law instruments, is composed
of a Commission communication serving as the policy frame, and a number of
legislative proposals. The latter include:
― a proposed regulation establishing new pre-entry screening rules;
― an amended proposal revising the draft Asylum Procedures Regulation;
― an amended proposal revising the recast Eurodac Regulation;
― a proposed new regulation establishing a common framework for asylum
and migration management (including a mechanism for solidarity and criteria
for examining asylum applications);
― a proposal for a new Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation (also replacing the
Temporary Protection Directive – 2001/55/EC);
― a proposed recommendation setting up a new Migration Preparedness and
Crisis Management Blueprint;
― a proposed new recommendation on resettlement and complementary legal
pathways;
― a proposed new recommendation on search and rescue operations by private
vessels; and
― a new Guidance on the Facilitators Directive (providing clarifications on the
non-criminalisation of humanitarian assistance).

In Poland, a union of more than 70 organisations working on behalf of migrants

and refugees published an open letter addressed to Polish central and local
authorities. It urged the government to accept a group of vulnerable people from
the Moria refugee camp, in particular unaccompanied children. So far, the letter
received positive responses from Tomasz Grodzki, Marshal of the Senate, and
the presidents of the cities in the Union of Polish Metropolises.

In Sweden, the deputy National Police Commissioner claimed that around 40

criminal clans were set up by migrants who came to Sweden with direct intent to
start criminal networks. The Swedish Prime Minister commented on national TV
that, «If we have a migration of a magnitude that means that we cannot handle
the integration [of these migrants], then the result will be that we get social
tensions in society and this is not good».

12
Situation at the border

Figures and trends

According to information provided by IOM to FRA, between July and September

2020, 28,485 migrants and refugees irregularly entered Italy, Malta, Greece and
Spain. The overall number of arrivals almost quadrupled compared to the previous
reporting period. The highest number of arrivals was recorded in Italy (16,779 EUROPE BY SEA
new arrivals), followed by Spain (10,362), and Greece (862). Malta was the only
country to show a decreasing trend (482 new arrivals compared to 545 in the
previous reporting period).

The network of associations “Adriatic Seaports Network” published a leaflet in

JULY - SEPTEMBER 2020
English to address the information gap for migrants who reach Italy through the
Adriatic. The leaflet provides information on fundamental rights of migrants in
Italy and in the EU and contact details of associations and services located in the
28,485 MIGRANTS
ports of arrival in Italy.

Hungary has further strengthened its border surveillance infrastructure along the
southern borders with Serbia. The deputy minister of defence stated: the Army
provided almost 500 military vehicles and many service dogs to conduct efficient
patrols along the fenced southern borders. Military helicopters have also been
deployed to help border surveillance from the air.

In Austria, under the auspices of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Ministers
of the Interior of 18 countries, including from the Western Balkans, agreed on
AUSTRIA
the “Vienna Declaration on effectively combating irregular migration along the
Eastern Mediterranean Route”. It envisages setting up an operational platform
in Vienna to coordinate activities related to border protection, returns, trafficking
and asylum procedures. 16,890 PEOPLE
6,338
TOTAL
In Bulgaria, according to the Ministry of the Interior, the number of apprehended CAPACITY
third-country nationals in July – September (1,595) was significantly higher compared
to the previous three months (225 in April – June) and to the same period last year
(920 in July – September 2019). Most were apprehended within the territory of
the country, and the rest either while trying to enter (196 persons), mostly from
Greece and Turkey, or while trying to leave (490 persons), mainly to Serbia. The
majority was from Afghanistan.
AUSTRIA
The number of migrants arriving in Spain by sea or land between January and
15 October 2020 was 8.2 % lower than during the same period of the previous year
(22,240, compared to 24,223 in 2019), according to the Ministry of the Interior.
During the same period, however, there was a remarkable increase of arrivals
to the Canary Islands. According to the Ministry of the Interior, arrivals to the
6,338 16,890 TOTAL
PEOPLE
Canary Islands increased by 688 % (from 1,028 to 8,102). CAPACITY

The NGO Jesuit Migrant Service reported a notable decrease in the number of
people entering Spain as a result of the closure of external borders in the early
phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the media, irregular arrivals
dropped by 60 % between January and May 2020; 90 % of those who did arrive
during that time did so by sea.

13
 In North Macedonia, according to data provided by the Ministry of Interior, the
number of apprehended third-country nationals in the period 15 June – 15 September
2020 (11,743) increased by approximately 60 % compared to the first three months
of 2020 (7,410) and the same period last year (7,362). Most of them (88 %) were
apprehended at the border with Greece.

In Serbia, 10,324 third-country nationals seeking international protection arrived

between July and September (3,197 in July; 4,146 in August; 2,981 in September),
according to UNHCR. As COVID-19 containment measures eased in Serbia, migrants
increasingly resorted to crossing the Serbian-Romanian border as opposed to
borders with Croatia and Bosnia, according to the NGO Humanitarian Center for
Integration and Tolerance.

Search and rescue (SAR)

According to the IOM, 301 people died or went missing while attempting to enter
Europe through the Eastern, Central and Western Mediterranean routes (134
between April and June 2020). The Central Mediterranean route continues to be
the deadliest (216 out of 301 deaths).

In Greece, three persons, including two children, drowned when a boat capsized
off the island of Crete, as media reported.

In Greece, NGO staff were recently arrested and charged with facilitating irregular
entry of migrants, espionage, violation of state secrets, and participation in
a criminal organisation. According to the Hellenic Police, under the guise of
humanitarian action, they provided confidential information to refugee flows from
Turkey via closed groups and internet applications. According to media reports,
the NGOs made use of the AlarmPhone application – an emergency telephone
number used by refugees and migrants crossing the sea from Turkey to Greece
to inform the NGOs about their exact location. The NGOs would then inform the
Hellenic Coast Guard and in case of no immediate response, they would publish
the issue on social networks as a form of pressure.

In Italy, the NGO “Open Arms” denounced being left without clear instructions
on how to disembark 276 migrants rescued in two SAR operations, resulting in
people jumping from the vessel and trying to swim to reach the Italian cost. The
NGO vessel “Sea Watch 4” also reported being stuck off the Sicilian shores with
354 migrants on board. Furthermore, the NGO vessel “Alan Kurdi” – carrying 125
migrants rescued at sea – was forced to proceed to Marseille, as they were not
allowed to disembark rescued migrants in Malta and Italy.

In Italy, the Administrative Court suspended the urgent ordinance issued by

the President of the Sicily Region, which closed the regional ports to any vessel
carrying migrants rescued at sea and ordered the immediate transfer of all people
hosted in regional reception centres and hotspots to other Italian regions. The
court found that the ordinance fell outside the regional legislative competences.
The ordinance had received harsh criticism from NGOs, including ‘Doctors for
Human Rights’ (Medici per i diritti umani, MEDU).

14
In Malta, delays in responding to search and rescue continued. In August 2020,
the cargo ship ‘Maersk Etienne’ was denied landing in Malta for 38 days after
rescuing 27 migrants in Tunisian waters, following a request by Maltese officials.
The rescue ship ran short of food and water and the delay affected rescued people’s
mental and physical health. These included a pregnant woman and a child. The
NGO ship ’Mediterranea’ took the rescued persons, provided them with food and
medical assistance, and finally brought them to Sicily.

In July, over 50 persons rescued in Malta’s search-and-rescue zone were stranded

on a livestock transport ship inadequate for human beings for four days before
they were brought ashore. The NGO AlarmPhone and IOM further reported that,
on 27 July, a boat with over 95 people, including a baby, were left in the Maltese
search-and-rescue zone for over 33 hours before being rescued by the Armed
Forces of Malta, while one person went missing after jumping overboard.

A parliamentary petition calling for closing Malta’s ports to irregular migrants

received over 47,000 signatures.

At least four persons, including a child, lost their lives while trying to reach Cyprus
by boat, according to UNHCR. According to media reports, the boat had been
adrift in international waters without food or water for a week.

In the North of France, an increasing number of migrants in an irregular situation

continued to attempt to cross the Channel in makeshift boats, according to the
Maritime Prefecture of the Channel and the North Sea. In late July, more than
200 people landed on British shores within one day, an all-time high number in
a single day, the British Home Office reported.

Since the beginning of the year, French authorities have intercepted some 620
migrants and refugees attempting to cross the Channel, media reported. In response
to the growing number of dangerous sea crossings, the French Ministry of the
Interior announced the creation of a “French-British Intelligence Unit” to fight
against human smugglers. The French and British authorities agreed “to make
the Channel ‘impracticable’ for irregular crossings”, the British Secretary of State
for Immigration stated to the press.

In France, according to the press, ten migrants from the Comoros, including a
7-year-old child, died when attempting to reach the French Overseas Department
of Mayotte on board a craft, which sank.

15
 Challenges at land borders

The Minister for Citizens’ Protection announced that the construction of another
fence on Greece’s land border with Turkey will be completed in eight months.
The existing fence will also be reinforced and border surveillance in the region
will be strengthened through the recruitment of 800 additional border guards.
FRA activity In Italy, the Ministry of the Interior replied to a parliamentary question on returns
Guiding border guards from Italy to Slovenia, acknowledging that returns are implemented without formal
decisions (and thus cannot be formally challenged). It also stated that returns
FRA recently published practical are carried out even when migrants express their intention to apply for asylum
guidance for border guards on how in Italy. The Ministry justified this approach by referring to “well-established
to uphold fundamental rights while procedures” in compliance with a bilateral agreement signed in 1996. It further
controlling EU external borders. The noted that there is no risk of chain refoulement because Slovenia and Croatia are
ten ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ focus on the EU Member States, and they should be considered safe.
following core areas:
1. Treating everyone with dignity;
The Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (Associazione per gli studi
2. Identifying and referring
vulnerable people; giuridici sull’immigrazione, ASGI) noted that the existence of a bilateral agreement
3. Respecting the legal basis, does not allow Italian authorities to return people without a formal decision. Under
necessity and proportionality EU law, migrants must always be allowed to lodge an asylum application, even
when using force; when they have irregularly crossed the borders of an EU Member State. ASGI
4. Applying safeguards when further stressed that considering Slovenia and Croatia as inherently safe countries
holding people at borders; and paves the way for chain returns. The association asked the Government to stop
5. Respecting procedural the practice and encouraged the UNHCR to monitor the situation at the border. A
safeguards and protecting report on the situation, entitled “The Balkan route. Migrants without rights in the
personal data. heart of Europe”, was released in June 2020 by 36 activists and NGOs.
The guidance is available on
FRA’s website, including as In Hungary, the police prevented some 2,445 people from crossing its southern
a ‘pocket edition’. border (twice as many as in the previous period). In early August, a group of
approximately 100 people collectively attempted to enter the country through
several sections of the fence located at the southern border with Serbia, the
police stated. When police officers warned them to stay away from the border
fence, some people started to throw stones at the policemen and some 30 people
climbed up on the fence. The police prevented all border crossing attempts.

In addition, the police reported to have apprehended 6,903 migrants in an irregular

situation during the reporting period – a significant increase compared to the
preceding period. The police escorted the migrants back to the outer side of the
border fence. Authorities do not fingerprint or register these individuals before
escorting them back to the border, nor do they record them as new arrivals or
asylum applicants in the statistics.

In Croatia, according to the NGO Welcome! Initiative, dead bodies were found
floating in the Mrežnica River and the Korana River near Karlovac, as well as in
the Drina River near Orlovo polje (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

16
In Croatia, Médecins du Monde-Belgium noted cases of separation of families at Legal corner
the borders – with mothers and children being sent to reception centres, while
fathers are returned to Bosnia. In Austria, on 13 July 2020, the
Federal Minister of the Interior
In Spain, the National Ombudsperson referred to police abuse at the southern provided a list of all legal
border. The Ombudsperson also referred to the difficulties faced by international amendments on border checks
protection seekers, in the case of Melilla, and the impossibility, in the case of issued during the COVID-19
Ceuta, to seek international protection regularly at the borders. pandemic. Up to 4 June, 17 laws
and regulations had been passed,
restricting entry into the country,
In Sweden, media reported an incident caught on video in September 2020,
with few exceptions.
showing the police using violence to force a black man out of a train travelling
The Federal Ministry of Social
from Denmark to Sweden. The man claimed the police only checked him due to
Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer
his skin colour and reported the police officers for misconduct and assault. The
Protection and the Federal Ministry
police has reported the man for violent resistance. of European and International Affairs
summarised the travel restrictions
In North Macedonia, media reported that a car carrying 12 migrants crashed currently in force. Entry from outside
against a standing police vehicle, causing the death of two migrants. According the EU and the Schengen area is still
to the Ministry’s bulletin, 11 migrants were injured in another accident. In another generally prohibited, with exceptions
incident, media reported that a migrant and a driver were shot in the leg by the for Austrian citizens, EU/EEA citizens,
police, after the driver refused to stop the car for a police inspection and tried to Swiss and UK nationals, and
run over the police officers. holders of other passports
under certain conditions.
Serbia started to build a razor wire fence on its border with North Macedonia in
August, as reported by the Radio Slobodna Evropa (Radio Free Europe). A decision
of the Ministry of Finance, temporarily expropriating the land nearby, explained
that the measure aims to contain the spread of COVID-19 as well as potential
massive irregular crossings of the state border.

17
REPORTED ALLEGATIONS
OF REFOULEMENT

France
Hungary
Slovenia
Croatia

Bosnia Serbia
Italy
North
Macedonia

Greece Turkey

Lebanon
Cyprus
Malta

Lybia

Note: Unlawful refusals of entry at airports are not included.

Source: FRA, 2020
18
 Legal corner
Risk of refoulement and police violence at borders
The principle of non-refoulement
Members of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee asked Greece is the core element of refugee
and the EU to investigate recurrent reports of violent pushbacks at the land and protection and is enshrined in
sea borders with Turkey. international and EU law. Article 33 (1)
of the 1951 Refugee Convention
UNHCR has received reports indicating that people might have been informally and the authentic interpretation of
returned to Turkey immediately after reaching Greek soil or territorial waters. Article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibit
The testimonies also concern people left adrift at sea for a long time, often in
returning an individual to a risk
unseaworthy and overcrowded dinghies. UNHCR called for further preventive
of persecution, torture, inhuman
measures, clear rules of process at the border and internal monitoring mechanisms, or other degrading treatment or
including through the reinforcement of the role of the Greek Ombudsperson. punishment. EU primary law reflects
Given the nature, content, frequency, and consistency of these accounts, a proper the prohibition of refoulement in
investigation should be launched without further delay, according to UNHCR. Article 78 (1) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in
Testimonies of alleged pushbacks have been published by the NGOs Human Rights Articles 18 and 19 of the EU Charter
Watch and Legal Centre Lesvos. 29 NGOs requested the Greek Parliament to of Fundamental Rights.
urgently establish an inquiry into all pushback allegations and examine whether The non-legal term pushback is used
they are part of a de facto government policy. when a person seeking international
protection is apprehended and
In Italy, the organisation “Refugees Rights Europe” published a report entitled “A returned back to a neighbouring
country without being granted access
Reluctant Welcome. Exploring issues of pushbacks, treatment in detention, and
to the territory and to a fair and
living conditions for displaced people in Italy”. It reports on chain returns from
efficient asylum procedure.
Italy to Serbia, the bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya, the closed-ports
policy, and critical issues pertaining to the Italian reception and detention systems,
underlining the impact of these issues on fundamental rights of migrants and
asylum applicants.

Pushbacks continued at the Alpine border between France and Italy despite the
public health crisis caused by COVID-19, several NGOs, including Médecins du
Monde, Amnesty International France and ANAFÉ reported to FRA.

In July, the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) ruled that the Ministry of the Interior
disregarded the right to asylum when the border police sent back a woman and
her five-year-old child from Menton (Department Alpes-Maritimes) to Italy, even
though the woman expressed her wish to apply for asylum. In a joint statement, six
NGOs – including the above – welcomed the ruling, condemning the police practice
they describe as systematic. These NGOs also urged the Ministry of the Interior
to issue public instructions to the border police so that people wishing to seek
international protection in France can do so at the French-Italian border, as well.

Ιn Cyprus, UNHCR and the NGO KISA noted increased pushbacks at sea. Following
the request for interim measures by the NGO KISA, the European Court of Human
Rights requested information from the Cypriot government.

ECRE highlighted the sharp increase in the number of boats trying to reach Cyprus
from Lebanon, with at least 21 boats between July and September, compared to
17 in the entire year in 2019.

19
 The NGO Human Rights Watch reported that, in the first week of September, the
Cypriot Coastguard summarily returned more than 200 persons without giving
them the opportunity to lodge asylum claims. The individuals interviewed by the
NGO stated that Coastguard vessels circled them at high speed, swamping their
boats and in at least one case abandoning them at sea without fuel and food.
Beatings were also reported in some cases. According to some testimonies, in
one case, a Coastguard vessel rammed into a wooden boat full of people, injuring
children and a woman. In another, an inflatable boat in distress was abandoned
without fuel and was rescued by Lebanese vessels six days later. Human Rights
Watch further reported that, in some cases, the Cypriot Coastguard used passenger
vessels to return people to Lebanon.

Media reports cite Cypriot authorities as admitting having returned to Lebanon

230 Lebanese and Syrians in early September, but denying the use of violence.
According to the representative of the police, the returns were carried out following
instructions by the competent ministries and consultations with Lebanon.

The Cyprus Refugee Council reported another instance of unlawful return, where
persons from the Pournara camp were told they would be taken for health
screening but were instead led onto a boat that transported them back to Lebanon.
They were not given access to the asylum procedure. Τhe Ministry of the Interior
denied this allegation.

The Slovenian Administrative Court issued a judgment confirming that the Slovenian
and Croatian authorities committed pushbacks, as a result of which a man from
Cameroon seeking international protection in Slovenia ended up in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

The Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) visited a
number of border police stations as well as the reception centre for foreigners
( Ježevo) in Croatia to examine the conditions of detention and pre-removal
procedures. The CPT also visited several temporary reception centres and informal
migrant settlements in north-west Bosnia and Herzegovina, where it interviewed
and medically examined many migrants who claimed they had been apprehended
by Croatian law enforcement officials within the territory of Croatia and forcibly
returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The NGO Centre for Peace Studies filed a criminal complaint with the State
Attorney’s Office against unknown perpetrators regarding an incident of torture,
humiliation and pushback of 16 refugees from Croatia to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Five refugees who suffered serious injuries have testified, one of whom had
both arms and a leg broken.

The Office of the Croatian Ombudswoman has started investigations into complaints
by refugees and migrants regarding ill-treatment by the police. According to
media reports, the Danish Refugee Council has collected testimonies of refugees
accusing the Croatian police of brutal assaults and severe sexual abuse. Croatia’s
Ministry of Interior is reportedly investigating the allegations, in order to either
address concerns about the behaviour of Croatian police officers or to sanction
and eliminate potential irregularities.

20
Asylum procedure

Figures and trends

The latest figures released by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) show
that, since the beginning of 2020, 295,075 applications for international protection EU+
have been lodged in the EU+, a 31 % decrease compared to the same period in
2019. This indicates that reduced mobility and pandemic emergency measures are
still affecting the number of applications lodged with national asylum authorities.
January - August
Asylum applications in August were down slightly from July (almost 43,000 2020
applications), and significantly below pre-COVID-19 levels. EASO notes that, despite
the COVID-19-related challenges, national asylum authorities have been able to
issue more first-instance decisions than there were applications lodged, reducing the
backlog. In August 2020, Syrians (5,394; 13 % of total) and Afghans (3,800; 10 %
of total) continued to lodge most of the applications for international protection,
followed by Venezuelans (3,600; 9 % of total) and Colombians (3,300; 7 % of

295,075 
total). The recognition rate between January and August 2020 stands at 26 %.

In Italy, between 5 September 2019 and 31 July 2020, 622 asylum applicants were
APPLICATIONS FILED
relocated (+167 % compared to the previous year). The Ministry of the Interior
reported that, on 6 August, 58 asylum applicants were relocated to Germany;
they had arrived in Italy on 16 and 30 October 2019 on the Ocean Viking vessel.

In Hungary, the new procedure, in force until the end of the year, requires individuals
to express their intent to seek asylum abroad, at designated Hungarian embassies
(in Belgrade [Serbia] and Kiev [Ukraine]). Only eight asylum applications were
submitted in the reporting period, the National Directorate-General for Aliens
Policing reported.

Austria initiated some 4,300 asylum withdrawal proceedings since the beginning ITALY
of the year, in 30 % of all cases due to criminal offences. This is an increase by
6 % compared to the same period of the previous year (4,051).

In Bulgaria, according to data provided by the State Agency for Refugees, the
1.1. - 1.2.2019
number of asylum applications increased from 191 for the period April to June
to 1,245 for the period July to September 2020. The majority of the applicants is
from Afghanistan.

In Spain, the Ministry of the Interior published the 2019 Data on Asylum in July
2020. The total number of applications for international protection was 118,446.
Positive decisions were granted to 1,659 refugees and 569 beneficiaries of subsidiary
protection, and 35,235 humanitarian permits were issued. The Ministry of the
RETURNS
636 > UNAUTHORISED
ENTRIES
Interior further published its last update on the official provisional data on asylum 155
between January and August 2020. Most of the applications were presented
within the Spanish territory (64,349). Only a small number of these were lodged
at border posts (1,527) or immigration detention facilities (682). Only 40 asylum
applications were lodged at embassies (40).

In Germany, 55,756 filed their first asylum request between January and July 2020,
according to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. This is 35.4 % less
than the previous year. Of the 55,756 first-time asylum applicants, 14,891 (26.7 %)
were children born in Germany under the age of one year. In the same period,
the Federal Office for Migration issued 180,032 decisions within the revocation
review procedure (Widerrufsverfahren). The protection status was revoked in
only 3.2 % of the cases. In all other cases, it was confirmed.

21
 In Poland, according to the Border Guard, between July and September 2020,
618 asylum applicants – first time and subsequent – were registered. (This is an
increase compared to 386 applicants in the second quarter of 2020.) Of these,
103 were Belarusians.

In Denmark, the Ministry of Immigration and Integration reported that approximately

1,000 third-country nationals applied for asylum in the first eight months of 2020.
This is the lowest number registered in the same period since 1998, when the
figures began to be calculated.

Access to asylum procedures

In Greece, the Asylum Service will carry out remote interviews for applicants settled
in the new emergency site on Lesvos. NGOs providing legal aid on Lesvos expressed
their objection to the hasty implementation of this procedure, arguing that they
were not adequately informed how it will work in practice, for instance concerning
access to lawyers, possibility to submit important procedural documents, etc.

In Malta, access by NGOs such as Aditus and JRS to the Safi detention centre
has been strictly limited since March, resulting in lack of basic information on
the asylum procedure as well as on available legal support. The high backlog of
asylum applications, confirmed by the International Protection Agency, leaves
applicants in limbo without access to basic services, according to these NGOs.

In Cyprus, a processing centre for asylum applications was set up in the Pournara
camp. The Cyprus Refugee Council raised concerns as there is no access to
independent legal advice in the camp. UNHCR highlighted that the restriction of
liberty in the camp as well as material deprivation are not conducive to establishing
the necessary conditions for asylum determination interviews.

In Austria, the asylum authorities generally request communication via email

as a covid-prevention measure. According to Caritas Vienna (Caritas Wien),
communication by electronic means, such as email, is difficult for some applicants.
Meanwhile, the courts have continued to schedule and hold hearings in asylum
procedures. The Austrian Ombudsperson Board received 67 complaints regarding
the duration of asylum proceedings in the second instance during the reporting
period. At the end of September, some 18,000 cases were pending at second
instance, according to the Ministry of Interior.

After receiving numerous complaints about the difficulties faced by persons in

need of international protection to lodge their application for asylum, the National
Ombudsperson in Spain recommended that the Ministry of the Interior urgently
adopt measures to facilitate access to the appointment system.

In addition to covid-19-related difficulties in counselling asylum applicants, civil

society organisations in Germany reported a shift from independent counselling to
counselling by state actors due to a change in the law, stipulating initial counselling
by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). The German Red Cross
stopped providing counselling services in the state of Saxony on 30 June 2020
due to lack of funding. Welfare organisations argue that the BAMF cannot cover
some of the tasks of counselling – for example, counselling appeals against its
own decisions. Since many applicants had negative experiences with government
agencies, the organisations call for counselling not to be exclusively provided by
state actors.

In Germany, asylum seekers who have converted to Christianity have to undergo

verification practices that are unsuitable for determining genuine religious reasons,
according to the Migration Commission of the German Bishops’ Conference. They
recommend more practical checks – for example, pastors or members of church
congregations testifying and accompanying asylum applicants at hearings.

22
In Denmark, according to the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, the COVID-19
pandemic further extended waiting times for asylum applicants and family
reunifications carried out pursuant to EU law.

Covid-19-related factors may negatively affect the outcome of individual

applications in Sweden, according to the Swedish Refugee Law Centre, Save the
Children, Amnesty Sweden and Stockholm City Mission, as applicants cannot meet
their public counsel in person or nuances may be lost in online interpretation.
While confirming that technical problems are a challenge, the Migration Agency
maintains that online interviews allow for respect of legal safeguards as fully as
physical meetings do.

In the Netherlands, in a letter to the Parliament, the government announced that

the asylum procedure will be shortened by collecting more information during
the ‘registration interview’, where there will be no legal assistance.

In North Macedonia, according to data provided by the Ministry of Interior, the

only positive asylum decision issued in the reporting period concerned a man from
Afghanistan who was granted subsidiary protection status. The NGO Jesuit Refugee
Service reported that asylum applications are usually declined on the ground that
the applicants did not prove their fear of persecution in their country of origin.

In Serbia, the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights told FRA that it considers the
length of the asylum procedure and lack of standards for decision-making as
key obstacles in the asylum procedure. The centre supported affected asylum
applicants by appealing to the second-instance body in several cases where a
first-instance decision of the Asylum Office had been pending for more than a
year (average of 475 days).

Family reunification

In Croatia, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the resettlement programme and family
reunifications have been suspended, preventing legal and safe entry of refugees
to the country, the Jesuit Refugee Service reported to FRA.

In Austria, according to the Austrian Red Cross (Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz),

persons wishing to apply for family reunification have difficulties in travelling to
diplomatic and consular representations in third countries due to COVID-19-related
travel restrictions.

In Germany, civil society organisations report very long waiting times for
appointments at consular offices of the German embassies. According to a
parliamentary question to the Federal Government (Kleine Anfrage an die
Bundesregierung), unaccompanied child refugees are only entitled to simplified
family reunification with their parents but not with siblings, unless the parents are
able to prove they will have sufficient living space and be self-sufficient if both
they and the siblings are permitted to come to Germany. This creates significant
hardships, according to the Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minors. In
addition, the Federal Workers’ Welfare Association and Pro Asyl report serious
difficulties for Eritrean refugees to obtain the necessary documents to prove
families ties.

In the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Refugee Council, many refugees

who have received permission for family reunification from the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (Immigratie of Naturalisatiedienst) cannot travel to
the Netherlands because the Dutch embassies where they have to collect their
visas (e.g. in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon) are closed due to COVID-19. Usually
there is no Dutch embassy in the country of origin and families have to go to a
neighbouring country.

23
 Reception

Reception capacity

Sufficient reception capacity was available in Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany,

Hungary, Poland, Sweden and North Macedonia.

In the reporting period or part thereof, reception facilities in Belgium, Cyprus,

France, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain, and Serbia were (almost) full or
overcrowded. In Greece, some facilities remained severely overcrowded.

In Italy, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 86,330 people were accommodated
in reception facilities as of 31 July 2020 (17 % less compared to 2019). This includes
949 persons in hotspots; 61,972 in first-level reception centres for asylum applicants,
and 23,409 in second-level reception centres for beneficiaries of international
protection and unaccompanied children.

In Italy, the Ministry of the Interior issued a Circular Letter terminating the
accomodation at Italian reception facilities of third-country nationals who were
exceptionally allowed to remain in centres during the pandemic. Local authorities
managing second-level reception centres can continue to accommodate vulnerable
individuals. The NGO “Italian Refugee Council” (Consiglio Italiano per i Rifugiati –
CIR) expressed concern over the measure, stressing the risks of leaving hundreds
of people with no accommodation while the virus is still spreading at a high rate.

In Malta, NGOs report overcrowding, poor conditions and shortages of trained staff
in reception facilities. Homelessness is increasing as asylum applicants have to
leave open centres after one year and space for quarantining is needed. Despite
available EU funding, the planned new open centre in Hal Far that would increase
residential capacity by 400 persons remains unbuilt and offshore detention has
been introduced.

In Bulgaria, according to the Ministry of the Interior, the occupancy rate of the
accommodation centres is approximately 16 %. To prevent the spread of Covid-19,
the reception centres in Banya and Pastrogor were re-opened, separating new
and old arrivals, the Bulgarian Red Cross reported.

Denmark, due to the historically low numbers of asylum applicants, has decided
to close two (out of seven) reception centres and one emergency centre. The
people currently living at the centres about to be closed will be transferred to
other centres.

Reception conditions

In its Rule of Law report, the European Commission noted a rise in attacks on
NGOs working with refugees and migrants in Greece and the shrinking space for
civil society to operate. The new Ministerial Decision, replacing the one issued in
April, introduces stricter requirements for the registration and certification of NGOs
and increases state discretion, according to the NGO Refugee Support Aegean.

24
In Italy, the National Institute for the Promotion of the Health of Migrants and
Countering Poverty Diseases (Instituto Nazionale per la promozione della salute
delle popolazioni Migranti e per il contrasto delle malattie della Povertà – INMP)
issued a report on the impact of COVID-19 on people hosted in reception facilities.
The report is based on monitoring activity carried out between 11 May and 12
June 2020 in over 5,000 reception facilities, accommodating 70 % of the people
hosted in the Italian reception system.

According to the report, a total of 239 cases of Covid-19, distributed in 68 of the

monitored facilities, were registered; 97.1% of these are located in northern Italian
regions. More than 90 % of the cases concerned men and more than 80% involved
people aged 20-34. Finally, the vast majority of cases (82.4 %) were registered in
the Extraordinary Reception Centres (Centro di Accoglienza Straordinaria – CAS).
Only 7.5 % were registered in second-level reception facilities.

In Italy, a number of civil society organisations – including the Association for Legal
Studies on Immigration (Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione, ASGI),
INTERSOS and ActionAid – reported that, in Udine, 30 people had to undergo the
14-day Covid-19 isolation period in a bus, with no hygienic services. The persons
were constantly monitored by police officers, and were not given any information
on their rights and the asylum procedure. The authorities explained that no places
were available in the local reception to accommodate them. On 24 September, the
Prefect of Udine decided to move them to an informal encampment located nearby.

In Cyprus, living conditions at the Pournara camp, where asylum applicants are
initially accommodated after lodging their application, continue to be substandard.
As reported by UNHCR and the Cyprus Refugee Council, new arrivals are often
quarantined together with people who arrived on previous dates. This leads to
extended quarantine periods, with an unaccompanied child spending 45 days in
quarantine, according to the Cyprus Refugee Council. After the quarantine, asylum
applicants are allowed to move out of the camp, which during the lockdown
was converted into a closed facility, but in practice, they face serious obstacles.
To leave the camp, applicants must find their own accommodation. For many
applicants, the only way out is to find rooms online, often under exploitative
conditions and rents.

According to UNHCR, by the end of September, the average length of stay in

Pournara was 30-40 days. As reported by the Cyprus Refugee Council, applicants
with no possibility to find their own accommodation have been held in the camp
for up to five months.

In Hungary, there have been no reports of COVID-19-infected asylum applicants

in either the closed asylum detention centre of Nyírbátor or the open facilities of
Vámosszabadi and Balassagyarmat. Still, the National Chief Public Health Officer
stated that the orderly epidemiological situation was seriously jeopardised in the
summer by uncontrolled migration. According to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee,
the very low number of asylum applicants accommodated in the open refugee
camps resulted in no infections amongst them. Similarly, after an on-site visit
carried out to Vámosszabadi, Euronews observed that asylum applicants had
often spent months, if not years, in the closed transit zones before moving to
open facilities after the closure of the transit zone and thus would not represent
a threat to the Hungarian population.

25
 In Croatia, the NGO Rehabilitation Centre for Stress and Trauma informed FRA
that they noted difficulties in ensuring the standards laid down in the Receptions
Conditions Directive, especially for vulnerable asylum applicants. For example,
an applicant with amputated legs was placed in a facility for the elderly with
mental problems, which was not adapted for people in wheelchairs. The NGO
also highlighted the lack of effective mechanisms to identify torture victims as
well as the lack of adult education. In Spain, IOM and UNHCR in August called
for an urgent and coordinated response to the alarming reception conditions of
refugees and migrants in Melilla. At that time, the Temporary Stay Centres for
Immigrants (CETIs) hosted around 1,400 people (double its capacity), including
approximately 150 children, as well as women and vulnerable people.

Due to the overcrowding of CETIs, reception takes place in an improvised manner

in inadequate conditions, such as in the city’s stadium for bullfights. The NGO Jesuit
Migrant Service, together with other organisations working in Melilla, denounced
the overcrowding and inhumane living conditions in those facilities, as well as the
Interior Ministry’s reluctance to relocate North Africans from the CETIs in Ceuta
and Melilla to mainland Spain. According to the media, the Secretary of State
for Migration committed to finding a solution for the people hosted in Melilla’s
bullfight stadium.

In France, following a visit to the informal camp in Calais in September, carried out
upon the request of 13 NGOs, the Public Defender of Rights noted sub-standard
living conditions. An estimated 1,200-1,500 people, including women with young
children and unaccompanied children, were sleeping in the woods, including in bad
weather conditions. They experienced harassment by police during evacuations.
Sanitary facilities were far from living areas, with only one water point; and
measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 were insufficient.

The Public Defender of Rights expressed particular concerns about the situation
of women and children. The lack of specific facilities for women makes them
particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and gender-based violence. Children,
some only 12-14 years old, were at risk of falling prey to illegal networks.

In Paris, repeated police operations took place to dismantle informal camps, the
NGO France Terre d’asile reported. According to the NGO, authorities started
providing shelter to some 2,100 people, including families and unaccompanied
children, in Aubervilliers (in the Northeast part of Paris), but the informal camp
gradually reappeared.

In Belgium, the Federal Asylum Authority (Fedasil) issued new instructions to

extend the reception system to Dublin transferees. However, material assistance
can still be limited to medical care if an individual assessment shows that the
person concerned had previously absconded or had already had their material
assistance limited due to lack of cooperation.

26
Fedasil also announced new sanitary measures in reception facilities, after an
increase of COVID-19 infections in the country over the summer. Under the new
rules, asylum applicants in reception centres must limit their social contacts to
five people (as all residents in Belgium) and wearing a mask is mandatory in all
common spaces. Outside activities were suspended. In addition, a colour-coding
system was put in place in all centres in view of adapting or suspending other
activities. All these measures were prolonged until at least the end of September.

In Germany, large reception facilities, such as AnKER centres, provide insufficient

privacy for victims of sexual violence, as the Migration Commission of the German
Bishops’ Conference told FRA. Civil society organisations reported to FRA pandemic-
related difficulties in providing educational services to children and psychotherapy.

Asylum seekers in Sweden who decide to live in so-called socio-economically Bright spots
challenged areas do not receive a daily allowance (dagersättning), as a measure
The Berlin Social Court held that the
aimed at preventing segregation. As several municipalities declared the whole
regulation on psychotherapeutic care
municipality as “socio-economically challenged”, the government decided that, provision (Ermächtigungsregelung
upon such a declaration by the municipality, the County Administrative Boards zur vertragspsychotherapeutischen
(Länsstyrelserna) in the different regions shall decide which areas therein may Versorgung) had to be interpreted
be considered to be “socio-economically challenged”. more broadly for asylum applicants.
Statutory insurance companies had
The Migration Agency has – together with the National Board of Health and maintained that, for a therapist who
Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions is not registered with them to be
(Sveriges kommuner och regioner, SKR) and the County Administrative Boards reimbursed for providing such care
(Länsstyrelserna) – proposed a future distribution of newly arrived persons among to asylum applicants, the asylum
regions and municipalities. applicant had to have lived in
Germany for 18 months and started
In Sweden, the National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet treatment during this timeframe.
– BRÅ) has examined applicants’ vulnerability to crime at reception centres. The court held that the therapists
According to the Swedish Church, women are especially vulnerable and often qualify for reimbursement as long as
subjected to sexual harassment and assault. the asylum applicant in their care has
lived in Germany for 18 months.
In the Netherlands, following a legal amendment, asylum applicants whose
application is rejected because they have already received an asylum permit in
another EU Member State must report daily to the Central Agency for the Reception
of Asylum Seekers (COA). They also do not receive a living allowance – but do
receive in-kind assistance, such as meals and basic items, at the reception facility.

27
 Child protection

Figures and trends

In Greece, as of 30 September 2020, according to the National Centre for Social

Solidarity (EKKA), 4,222 unaccompanied children were estimated to be in the
country, including 208 separated children (who are accompanied by an adult other
than their parents or legal caregivers). Only 1,501 were in appropriate and long-
term accommodation (shelters and semi-independent living apartments); 1,164
were in temporary accommodation (‘safe zones’, emergency accommodation for
UAC and hotels); 120 stayed in Reception and Identification Centres; 226 were in
‘protective custody’, mainly at police stations; and 192 were in open temporary
accommodation facilities. EKKA reports also that, 1019 live in informal or insecure
housing conditions such as temporarily in apartments with others, in squats, being
homeless and moving frequently between different types of accommodation.

In Italy, as of 31 August 2020, 5,540 unaccompanied children were registered,

according to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies: 5,308 (95.8 %) are boys
and 232 (4.2 %) are girls. Two out of three are 17 years old and one out of four
is 16 years old. Some 270 children were younger than 14 years of age. The three
most common nationalities among unaccompanied migrant children are Albanian
(22.9 %), Bangladeshi (17.4 %) and Egyptian (10.8 %). Some 20 % of these
children are hosted in reception facilities in Sicily. In August 2020, 260 children
were registered as missing. Between January 2020 and 5 October 2020, 3,152
unaccompanied children reached Italy by sea, according to the Ministry of Interior.

In Croatia, the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy, as
well as the Office of the Ombudswoman for Children, told FRA that they noted
an increase in unaccompanied children entering the country.

After closing down the transit zones at the southern border of Hungary at the end
of May, five unaccompanied children in an irregular situation were apprehended and
transferred to the children’s home in Fót near Budapest, the National Headquarters
of the Police stated. However, under the law, fully-fledged child protection
guardians are only assigned to children below the age of 14; for the rest, only
social workers are appointed, who serve as ad hoc guardians in the asylum and
other migration-related procedures, UNHCR confirmed.

In Austria, some 170 unaccompanied children are in basic care as of September

2020. Some 85 of them were below the age of 16, according to the Austrian Red
Cross. As of 1 September 2020, 228 missing children with non-EU-citizenship
were registered in the SIS II, 61 of whom were between the ages of 0 to 14, the
Federal Ministry of the Interior, Criminal Intelligence Service, Competence Centre
for Missing Children told FRA.

In France, in a report sent to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of

the Child, the Public Defender of Rights pointed out several shortcomings in the
childcare system concerning migrant children with families and unaccompanied
children. For instance, authorities continued to increasingly use former hotels to
accommodate them. This short-term response is often coupled with substandard
housing conditions (overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, etc.). All this is detrimental
to the social inclusion of the families concerned. The lack of adequate support
services and the long distance between hotels and such services and facilities is
likely to lead to children dropping out of schools.

28
In France, 72 children who were considered as adults were evicted from an informal
camp in the centre of Paris and referred to services for adults, multiple NGOs and
support groups reported. The same civil society organisations challenged these
young people’s age assessment before a court, arguing that they were children
and deprived of child-protection services pending appeal.

In the Netherlands, NIDOS, the organisation in charge of guardianship for

unaccompanied children seeking asylum, published its annual report covering
the year 2019. The report shows that, in 2019, only 1,435 new children were placed
under guardianship, compared to 1,870 in 2018. Among the 3,072 unaccompanied
children under guardianship in 2019, the three top countries of origin were Eritrea,
Syria and Somalia.

Some 538 unaccompanied or separated children arrived in Serbia, as UNHCR told

FRA (94 in July; 177 in August; 267 in September), compared to 79 in the previous
quarter. The Asylum Office registered 394 children wishing to seek asylum in Serbia
in the same period; these included 22 unaccompanied and separated children,
predominantly from Afghanistan (18), according to Asylum Office reports received
by the Belgrade Centre of Human Rights.

Relocation

As of 7 October, 1,157 vulnerable people, including 292 unaccompanied children,

have been relocated from Greece to other EU Member States. After the fires in
Moria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia committed to relocate the 400 unaccompanied
children who had been living in the camp.

In Italy, the Ministry of the Interior agreed to the transfer of 300 asylum applicants
from Greece to Italy following the fire that destroyed the Moria camp on Lesvos.
The relocation will be carried out through the humanitarian corridor set up by the
Ministry of the Interior and the NGO “Comunità di Sant’Egidio.” The project will
last for 18 months and will prioritize the relocation of unaccompanied children.

Germany will likely accept between 100 and 150 unaccompanied children, according
to the Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family; the state of
Berlin committed to take in 70 unaccompanied children. UNHCR Berlin recalled the
need for support to Greece, particularly for the admission of vulnerable persons.
The Migration Commission of the German Bishops’ Conference urged the federal
government to increase their support, especially in view of the strong willingness
of local authorities to accept more refugees.

In the Netherlands, the State Secretary for Justice and Security decided to take in
50 children and 50 vulnerable people from Moria. The 100 people will in 2021 be
deducted from the UNHCR resettlement quota. Any family members who come
to join the 100 refugees will also be deducted from the quota. The Dutch Refugee
Council (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland) criticised the decision to relocate refugees
from Moria at the expense of those under the UNHCR resettlement scheme.

29
 Reception conditions

In Cyprus, in response to allegations of sexual abuse of unaccompanied children,

a “safe zone” was created inside the camp, but with less capacity than initially
intended. According to the Cyprus Refugee Council, children are not allowed to
exit the safe zone, do not have access to guardians nor to education, leisure or
legal advice. Mothers with children are accommodated in the zone; the fathers
are not permitted to reside with their families and are housed in tents outside
the “safe zone”.

In Croatia, according to the NGO Croatian Law Centre as well as the Welcome!
Initiative, the reception conditions in the country are not adequate for unaccompanied
children as they are often placed in Community Service Centres (“Centar za pružanje
usluga u zajednici”) for children with behavioural issues. Another issue noted by
the NGO Croatian Law Center is the very long process for the appointment of
guardians.

In Germany, the Berlin Refugee Council, the Federal Workers’ Welfare Association,
as well as the Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minors, reported to FRA that
refugee shelters do not provide the necessary conditions for home-schooling. In
many cases, there is no stable Wi-Fi, people do not have computers and printers,
and many parents were not able to instruct their children in home-schooling while
volunteer organisations could no longer access the accommodations during the
lockdown. After the lockdown, rooms for homework help were not accessible
in the facilities and school officials deprioritised re-opening so-called “welcome
classes” for refugee pupils, according to the Berlin Refugee Council. This delayed
their access to schools after the lockdown.

In Sweden, decisions to shut down accommodation centres due to decreasing

arrivals failed to sufficiently consider the best interests of the child, according
to Save the Children and the Swedish Church. Children need to move and often
change schools, which makes it difficult for them to keep up with their education.

In Denmark, according to information provided to FRA by the Danish Refugee

Council and the Danish Red Cross reported that, during summer, 48 families
of rejected asylum seekers with children were moved from Departure Centre
Sjælsmark to the new Asylum Centre Avnstrup to improve their living conditions,
especially for the children.

In Denmark, according to information provided to FRA by the Danish Red Cross,

in a number of separated families, one parent has a residence permit and lives
in a municipality while the other parent does not have a residence permit and
lives in a reception centre. This means children are denied the possibility to live
with both of their parents. The Danish Red Cross is currently conducting research
based on interviews with the families involved and with experts to clarify the
nature of the problem.

In North Macedonia, the NGO Legis indicated that they reported to the authorities
the case of a police officer hitting a child in a transit centre. According to the NGO,
the case is under investigation.

In Serbia, facilities for accommodating unaccompanied children in the asylum

centres need to be brought in line with minimum child-protection standards,
according to UNHCR, in addition to expanding the capacity of institutions for social
protection. Measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to limit NGOs’ visits
to youth centres of the institution for social protection. Children arriving in the City
of Niš have to isolate for 14 days, during which they may only leave their rooms
for 15 minutes a few times a day.

30
Safeguards and specific support measures Legal corner
The NGO Save the Children, in its report ‘Protection Beyond Reach: State of play In his report ‘Ending immigration
of refugee and migrant children’s rights in Europe, looked at five key themes: detention of children and providing
protection at Europe’s outer borders; immigration detention; access to asylum adequate care and reception for
and residency; family reunification; and guardianship. Save the children noted them’, the UN Special Rapporteur
an increase in violence at borders and of child detention, as well as stricter rules on the human rights of migrants
to get refugee status or reunite with family. The organisation called for a plan examined the international legal
to end immigration detention; access to a guardian for unaccompanied children framework protecting the human
rights of migrant children.
within 24 hours; family reunification within three months; better and more legal
migration pathways; and immediate access to protection at borders. The Special Rapporteur reviewed the
impact of immigration detention on
children and existing alternative care
In Italy, the Authority for the Protection of Childhood and Adolescence (Autorità
and reception solutions, identified
Garante per l’Infanzia e l’Adolescenza, AGIA) released two reports on the good practices and concluded
implementation of the voluntary guardianship system introduced by law n. 47 of 7 that the immigration detention of
April 2017. It addresses training activities carried out by the regional branches of children is effectively avoidable.
the authority and the activities carried out by juvenile courts. As of 30 June 2019, He recommended that Member
2,965 voluntary guardians were officially enrolled in the lists of juvenile courts. States shift away from a focus on
Three out of four are women, 63.1 % are over 45 years old, 78.2 % have regular enforcement and coercion towards
employment, 10.8 % are retired, and 79.5 % have completed tertiary education. providing human rights-based
In the same reporting period, 70 training sessions were have been organised, 15 alternative care and reception for all
of which were directly promoted by the authority. migrant children and their families.

In Malta, the Minor Protection (Alternative Care) Act came into force on 1 July.
According to the Office of the Commissioner for Children, the Director responsible
for protecting children at risk must ask the court to provide for the tutorship
and/or curatorship of the child immediately after registration and issuance of
identification documents (Article 21(2)).
Bright spots
In Malta, parents, especially in open centres, had not received enough information
about covid-19-related restrictions and online teaching material, according to the In Italy, the Government signed an
NGO KOPIN. Due to a lack of volunteers, recreational activities run by NGOs for agreement with regions and local
children were stopped. autonomous institutions. Entitled
“Multi-disciplinary Protocol on Age
In Cyprus, third-country national children born after their parents have left their Assessment of Unaccompanied
Migrant Children”, it seeks to
country of origin, or born to parents who married in Cyprus, no longer automatically
harmonise procedures to assess
receive the residence status of their parents. This practice, as Cyprus Refugee
the age of unaccompanied migrant
Council told FRA, affects families with a long presence in the country as well as children.
international protection beneficiaries. It also leaves dependent children in legal
The procedure must be carried out by
limbo or leads them to apply for a special status that is not compatible with their
a multi-disciplinary team. It follows
factual conditions. As reported by the Cyprus Refugee Council, the Asylum Service three steps with an increasing level
sought the opinion of the Attorney General on the transposition of the EU’s Family of invasiveness, which should be
Reunification Directive and the interpretation of the term “family member” in kept to a minimum: a social interview
the context of beneficiaries of international protection. A complaint by affected with the child; a psychological
individuals was submitted before the Child Ombudsperson and similar cases are evaluation; and a paediatric visit. It
pending in court. is not necessary to make use of all
the steps if the age can be assessed
In Belgium, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons re- after the first or the second one.
started interviewing asylum-seeking unaccompanied children. The interviews The procedure must be carried out in
take place respecting multiple sanitary measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic an adequate facility, preferably the
– for example, by placing plexiglas panels between those present at the interview. reception facility where the child is
accommodated or at the healthcare
facilities at the disposal of local
In Germany, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees resumed hearing
healthcare authorities.
asylum applicants, which it had stopped doing due to the pandemic. Priority
was given to applicants from specific countries of origin and not to applicants
from vulnerable groups, such as victims of trafficking in human beings or of
sexual violence, the Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minors told FRA.
Their hearings are postponed to an unknown date, increasing the psychological
pressure on these persons.

31
 Immigration detention

Figures and trends

In Italy, the Italian Coalition for Freedoms and Civil Rights (Coalizione Italiana
Libertà e Diritti civili – CILD) issued a report on immigration detention during the
COVID-19 emergency, covering February-June 2020. It notes that, as of 2 July, 451
people were held in Italian hotspots; 332 in Italian Detention and Return Centres
(Centri di Permanenza per il Rimpatrio – CPRs); 207 on the Moby Zazà vessel; and
a number of people were held in ad-hoc facilities established during the COVID-19
emergency in Sicily to allow people who just disembarked to undergo the 14-
day isolation period. The report stressed that these facilities became de facto
quarantine facilities, where the migrants’ personal freedom was limited without
specific judicial authorisation. The report also questions pre-removal detention
more generally, due to the lack of tangible prospects for removal in light of the
suspension of flights during the pandemic.

In Hungary, 90 people were placed in pre-removal detention during the reporting

period, a slight decrease compared to the previous period (108 people), according
to data of the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing and the National
Headquarters of the Police provided to FRA. In the same period, according to
the same sources, six men were held in asylum detention, either to facilitate
their Dublin transfers, or to decide on their asylum claim under the new rules
(asylum procedure to be initiated from abroad). As of the end of September, six
asylum applicants were being detained at the Nyírbátor asylum detention facility,
according to information provided to FRA by the National Directorate-General for
Aliens Policing.

In Croatia, 122 people, including children, were placed in immigration detention

in the reporting period, in facilities at Tovarnik, Ježevo and Trilj, according to
data the Ministry of Interior shared with FRA. This marks a significant increase
compared to the previous reporting period (36 detainees). The average time of
their detention varied between five and 45 days.

In Bulgaria, according to the Ministry of the Interior, the capacity of the two pre-
removal facilities (Busmantsi and Lyubimets) was increased from 700 to 1,060
persons. A total of 1,487 new persons were sent to the pre-removal facilities
between July and September, marking a significant increase compared to the
previous three-month period (April–June 2020), when the number of newly placed
persons was 193. At of the end of September, the total number of detainees was
523, the majority being from Afghanistan (213 persons), Syria (181 persons), and
Iraq (54 persons).

In Spain, the NGO Spanish Refugee Aid Commission (CEAR) showed concern over
the reopening of the Internment Centres for Foreigners (CIEs), after their closure
in March 2020 due to the impossibility of returning irregular migrants. According
to the media, the government has shown its willingness to resume its return
policy and thus reopen pre-removal detention facilities.

A total of 304 people were held in immigration detention in Belgium in July and
August, according to data the Immigration Office provided to FRA. Due to the
COVID-19 outbreak, the overall detention capacity was reduced from 635 places
to 296.

In Sweden, the number of detainees continues to exceed available places, which

have been further halved due to covid-19-related protection measures, the
Migration Agency told FRA. Civil society organisations express concerns over the
infection risk and persons in detention who cannot be returned due to covid-19-
related obstacles, the Ombudsperson told FRA.

32
Detention conditions

In Cyprus, a number of court decisions (issued, for example, on 09.07.2020 and

28.07.2020) concerned administrative detention of asylum applicants or rejected
applicants for approximately 15-16 months on grounds of national security. The
court found that the reasons for suspecting the individuals at issue of involvement
in terrorism were vague and unsubstantiated, and did not justify the length of
the detention. It thus ordered the release of the detainees.

In Cyprus, police stations are increasingly used to detain third-country nationals,

including newly arriving asylum applicants, the Cyprus Refugee Council reported
to FRA. The length of detention often exceeds two weeks, according to the same
source.

In Austria, the commissions of the Austrian Ombudsperson Board acting as

National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) told FRA that they resumed their visits to
places where the freedom of individuals is restricted after the COVID-19-related
lockdown. They submitted six protocols concerning visits to police detention
centres, identifying challenges in relation to visiting modalities, employment,
staffing level, solitary confinement and access to the yard. Bright spots
In Bulgaria, UNHCR informed FRA that asylum applicants who can easily be returned
to their countries of origin in case of a negative decision (e.g. persons with valid In France, a group of civil society
organisations published their annual
passports) are systematically detained during the examination of their application.
report (2019), providing a detailed
and comprehensive account of
In France, the Controller General of Places of Deprivation of Liberty published a fundamental rights issues in pre-
report on the fundamental rights of persons deprived of their liberty in times of removal detention centres (centre de
the COVID-19 pandemic. The report voiced concerns about the situation in pre- rétention administrative – CRA).
removal detention facilities, including waiting areas at the border, in conditions that The collaborative approach of the
put the detainees’ health at risk. It noted that, in view of drastically reduced air report, which involved national
traffic, immigration detention has become “an unjustified measure in practice [and] authorities, makes it possible to
highly questionable in law” due to the lack of a reasonable prospect of removal. regularly provide reliable and
comparative information on the
Similarly, the NGO La Cimade expressed criticism about keeping hundreds of fundamental rights situation in
returnees in pre-removal detention while there are virtually no flights to their immigration detention facilities
country of origin due to the COVID-19 pandemic. across France.

Civil society organisations published the annual report for 2019 on pre-removal
detention centres across the country. It found that, last year, an unprecedented
number of returnees were put into detention pending removal (54,000, of whom
29,906 were locked up in Mayotte). According to the report, the Controller General
deplored the authorities’ failure to follow up on his repeated request to temporarily
close the pre-removal detention centres in view of the COVID-19 outbreak.

In Belgium, visits to pre-removal detention centres by friends and family members

of the detainees restarted in July, followed by letting NGOs visit from mid-July as
well, the Immigration Office stated to FRA.

In Sweden, detainees are unable to receive visitors due to COVID-19-related

prevention measures, the Swedish Church told FRA. Priests who support individuals
in detention centres are unable to visit the centres. They report to FRA that
detainees are becoming increasingly mentally unstable compared to before the
COVID-19 outbreak.

In the Netherlands, a report published by three NGOs shows that, between

2016 and 2019, isolation in the context of immigration detention almost doubled,
whereas the occupancy rate increased by only 30 % during this time (from 330
in 2016 to 430 in 2019). In several cases, people were in isolation for six months.
The NGOs call on the Dutch government to end isolation in immigration detention
and, until then, to apply it only in exceptional cases, and always for as short a
time as possible.

33
 In the Netherlands, a proposed amendment to a bill on immigrant detention
currently under review by the Senate introduces several disciplinary measures,
including the possibility for the head of the detention centre to impose a lockdown
for a maximum of four weeks. During such a lockdown, migrant detainees will
be held in their cells for 23 hours a day. The Immigration Detention Hotline
(Meldpunt Vreemdelingendetentie) and the National Ombudsperson criticised
the amendment as contrary to the original intention of the bill, which was to
improve the conditions of third-country nationals held in immigration detention.

In Serbia, the Shelter of Foreigners told FRA, no doctor is available at the facility,
and medical assistance is provided in the nearest health-care centre. Asylum
seekers are rarely detained; in the reporting period, the Asylum Office said it
issued one detention order to an asylum seeker.

Detention of children

In Austria, among the 2,013 persons detained pending removal in the first half
of 2020, 10 children were detained, for an average of 8.8 days, according to the
Federal Ministry of the Interior.

In France, the widespread use of immigration detention of children with families,

and instances of keeping the child in pre-removal detention alone while the
parents are not held (particularly in Mayotte), remained problematic issues, the
Public Defender of Rights reported. In the latter case, the judicial authorities
refuse to entrust the child to child-protection services or to their parents, which
leads to prolonged detention, sometimes for 20 days, which is the maximum
duration by law.

According to the annual report on pre-removal detention centres published by

a group of NGOs, including La Cimade, 3,380 children were detained pending
removal in 2019, with 3,101 underage individuals detained in the French overseas
department of Mayotte.

In France, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights criticised in

an opinion the “proposed law to strictly regulate the administrative detention
of families with children”. The draft does not categorically prohibit immigration
detention of children; it merely limits such detention to 48 hours, with a possible
extension of three days. Recalling that the ECtHR found France guilty of arbitrary
detention on multiple occasions, the opinion calls on the National Assembly to
amend the legislative proposal.

The coalition agreement of the newly formed government in Belgium aims to

increasingly use alternatives to immigration detention, especially for children who
should not be held in detention; and to limit the duration of detention pending
removal to the shortest period of time. The document also seeks to increase
the effectiveness of the country’s return policy and to implement measures to
prevent circumstances in which removal is made impossible due to a manifest
lack of cooperation.

In Serbia, the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights said to FRA that no cases of
unaccompanied children being detained in the Shelter for Foreigners was reported
to the centre. However, children were sometimes detained there together with
their families.

34
Return

Figures and trends

According to the IOM, since the beginning of 2020, 9,830 individuals have been
rescued or intercepted at sea and returned to Libya. Of these, 532 were minors.

Authorities in Hungary carried out 169 removals to third countries, as well as

524 intra-EU readmissions in application of readmission agreements, during the
reporting period, according to data of the National Headquarters of the Police
provided to FRA. Pending removal, returnees were kept in pre-removal detention
centres at the Budapest International Airport and in Nyírbátor, according to the
Ministry of the Interior.

Croatia implemented 275 forced returns to Kosovo, Albania and Morocco, and 117
voluntary returns to Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia and Albania, according to data
of the Ministry of the Interior provided to FRA.

Austria returned 3,489 persons in the first half of 2020 (1,646 voluntary, including
109 children, and 1,843 forced returns and Dublin returns). Of the 1,555 persons
who were returned forcibly, including 24 children, 1,000 were destined to EU
and EFTA countries and 555 to third-countries, according to the Federal Ministry
of the Interior. By the end of June 2020, 11 charter operations had been carried
out to seven destinations. In August 2020, 720 returns took place (335 voluntary
and 385 forced returns). Forced returns in August 2020 were mainly conducted
to other EU Member States, Serbia and Nigeria.

In Belgium, 302 irregularly staying third-country nationals departed voluntarily

in July and August (most of them to Brazil, Georgia and Ukraine), and authorities
removed 278 migrants in an irregular situation during that period, the Immigration
Office reported to FRA.

In Sweden, 1,450 persons were returned during the reporting period, including
1,124 voluntary and 326 forced returns, the Migration Agency told FRA. Among
the voluntary returns, 236 were children, 290 were women, and 598 were men.
Among the forced removals, 18 were children. The top three nationalities for
returns during the reporting period were Afghanistan (163 persons), Ukraine (149
persons) and Albania (143 persons).

In the Netherlands, 11,830 persons were returned between January and August
2020, according to government data. This includes 2,340 forced removals, 2,830
returns with supervision, and 6,660 independent returns without supervision.
Voluntary departures and forced removals marked a 21 % decrease compared to
the same period in 2019.

35
 Fundamental rights concerns related to return

In Austria, the courts of second instance started to determine whether applicants

have pre-existing medical conditions (such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases)
that put them into a COVID-19 risk group. If so, this may result in granting an
appeal and not withdrawing protection status.

In Poland, according to the NGOs Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and
Association for Legal Intervention, the ECtHR in August 2020 granted interim
measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in two cases concerning Tajik
nationals. The ECtHR held that Tajik nationals should temporarily not be deported
from Poland to Tajikistan. According to the NGOs, Polish authorities planned to
deport the Tajik citizens without properly examining the risk of torture, inhuman
or degrading treatment upon arrival and their right to family life in Poland. The
NGOs underlined that the expulsions were ordered despite a number of procedural
shortcomings, including the lawyer’s inability to access case files, classified as
‘secret’ by the Polish authorities. This case suggests persisting legal gaps in the
Polish administrative law. In response, the Border Guard reiterated that they fully
respect the ECtHR’s rulings and interim measures in the area of return.

In Spain, according to the 2019 Annual Report of the Public Prosecutor’s Office
published in September 2020, the number of requests for expulsions replacing
prison sentences increased by almost 20 % compared to 2018. This is even though
European courts require a case-by-case proportionality assessment – the CJEU
for EU long-term residents (Case C‑636/16, López Pastuzano) and the ECtHR in
respect of claims under Article 8 of the ECHR ( Joined cases 76550/13 and 45938/14,
Saber and Boughassal v. Spain).

In France, the Public Defender of Rights expressed concerns about persistent

practices in the overseas department of Mayotte, where migrant children are
falsely associated with other persons with whom they have no family ties in order
for them to be placed in pre-removal detention and subsequently removed from
the country. This mainly affects children from the Comoros arriving in Mayotte
on makeshift crafts.

In France, a new pre-removal detention centre in Plaisir (located in the Yvelines

Department) will soon be used exclusively to hold returnees who are infected
with the COVID-19 virus, the Ministry of the Interior announced to the press.
Approximately ten infected detainees may be accommodated at a time (one
person per cell). The date for the transformation of this centre has not yet been
set, mainly due to a lack of medical staff, the NGO France Terre d’asile reported.
The NGO Migrants Family Social Service association deplored this project, arguing
that returnees should be catered to in facilities that are specifically designed to
take care of the most vulnerable patients.

In Belgium, the so-called “Bossuyt Commission”, evaluating the country’s return

policy, published its final report. The report’s recommendations include making
it mandatory for persons subject to return to cooperate with the authorities in
determining their identity and obtaining travel documents; creating a new ground
for pre-removal detention for the purposes of identification without the need to
assess the risk of refoulement and possible violations of the right to family life
(which should be assessed earlier, before issuing the return decision); as well as
increasing the capacity of immigration detention centres.

Germany has removed around 400 persons to the Republic of Moldova since July
2020, mostly Roma, according to the Berlin Refugee Council. Among them were
persons with mental disorders, wheelchair users and a patient in chemotherapy,
removed at night. The Berlin Refugee Council criticised the removal of vulnerable
persons dependent on medical aid to Moldova as a COVID-19 risk country, as well
as the removals at night, which have generally been increasing in Berlin, according
to the Jesuit Refugee Service.

36
The Berlin Senate confirmed that around 80 % of arrests for removal (polizeiliche
Ingewahrsamnahme) in Berlin have taken place at night since the beginning
of 2020. However, according to law, the police may only enter or search an
apartment at night if it can establish that the arrest for the purpose of removal
will otherwise be prevented. In Berlin, mobile phones are generally confiscated
during removals, which prevents returnees from contacting their lawyers, as the
Berlin Refugee Council told FRA.

In Germany, the Jesuit Refugee Service reported to FRA that means of restraints on
return flights (mostly belts or body cuffs) are increasingly used. It remains unclear
which criteria are applied to decide whether to use such measures, and whether
or which de-escalation strategies are used to avoid relying on such restraints.

In Sweden, the government submitted a report of the Swedish National Audit

Office (Riksrevisionen) on the effectiveness of return procedures to the parliament
in June 2020. It shows that barely half of the 23,352 return decisions issued in 2013
and 2014 were followed by a registered departure. More than half of these return
cases (12,466) were handed over to the Swedish Police (Polisen) because the
person had absconded (6,857 cases) or to enforce their return (5,609 cases). Of
these 12,466 cases, only every third was closed through a registered departure.
The audit further shows weaknesses in the cost efficiency, governance and
coordination of return activities. Recommendations to the government are to review
the mandates and division of responsibility between the agencies; strengthen the
coordination of goals, results, and financial management for return activities; and
consider how to improve the transfer of information between agencies involved
in return activities.

Several stakeholders interviewed by FRA in Sweden expressed concern over

returns to Syria as well as Afghanistan due to ongoing conflicts in these countries.

In Denmark, the Danish Parliamentary Ombudsperson reported on the inspections

conducted last June in three prisons, including in the unit for foreign nationals
sentenced to deportation located in Nyborg Prison. The inspections examined how
the institutions have dealt with COVID-19 and how COVID-19-related measures have
affected individuals in prison. The Ombudsperson recommended that authorities
consider whether a future pandemic can be dealt with using less restrictive
measures and suggested making relevant guidelines and information available
in languages that all inmates understand.

In Denmark, the Ministry of Justice reported to FRA that, since August 2020,
several tasks and responsibilities related to returns of rejected asylum seekers
have been moved from the National Police to a new authority established under
the Ministry of Immigration and Integration, called ‘the Danish Return Agency’
(Hjemrejsestyrelsen). The government reported that the new authority will have
the responsibility to inform asylum applicants upon entry of what happens if they
are refused asylum, and on the temporary nature of the asylum-related residence
permit. The Danish Institute for Human Rights reported that the new authority
will also take over return counselling of rejected asylum seekers, for which the
Danish Refugee Council was previously responsible.

In the Netherlands, in a report on forced removals and removals with supervision

of foreign nationals in 2019, the Inspectorate for Justice and Security concludes
that these removals took place in a safe and humane way and that only the
information sharing between the organisations involved remains a point of
concern, although it has improved in recent years. The Inspectorate decided to
stop the investigations in the coming years and to base its future assessment of
the return procedure on ad-hoc investigations and on the information reported
by the organisations involved in the removal of foreign nationals.

37
 Hate speech and violent crime

In Italy, the association “Lunaria” released the Fifth White Book on Racism in Italy,
which covers 12 years of monitoring activity of racism incidents from 1 January
2008 until 31 March 2020. During the reporting period, estimated racist incidents
amount to 7,426: 5,340 cases of verbal violence, 901 cases of physical violence,
177 cases of damage to personal property, and 1,008 discrimination cases. The
report stressed the increase of online hate crimes and hate speech, exacerbated
Bright spots by the COVID-19 emergency.

In Italy, the National Office against In July 2020, three NGOs (Action Aid Italia Onlus, Amnesty International Italia,
Racial Discrimination (Ufficio Cospe Onlus) – in partnership with other NGOs, eight universities, two research
Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni centres, two observatories (including the Observatory for the Security against
Razziali, UNAR) signed a protocol
Discriminations of the Italian Police) and the National Forensic Council – set up the
with the Italian Journalists’
National Network Countering Hate crimes and Hate speech (Rete nazionale per
Professional Association (Consiglio
Nazionale dell’Ordine dei Giornalisti) il contrasto ai discorsi e ai fenomeni d’odio). The network promotes and supports
and the association “Carta di Roma” advocacy, training and research in this field; shares good practices in tackling
to develop professional training racism; and raises awareness among civil society.
activities for press and media
professionals on racism, xenophobia In Malta, the Hate Crime and Speech Unit has, since July 2020, supported a child
and discrimination. who was verbally and physically assaulted due to his skin colour. Hate speech
UNAR also signed a protocol with remains far more prevalent than hate crimes, with nearly half of all reported
the Italian Sports Union for All incidents concerning migrants (55 of 111 reports). Incidents commonly occur on
(Unione Italiana Sport per Tutti – social media and in response to reported crimes by foreigners.
UISP) and the association Lunaria,
for the establishment of a National Following a second peak in COVID-19 infections in Malta, the Prime Minister
Observatory against Discrimination publicly denied the impact of mass gatherings and referred to migrants making
in Sports (Osservatorio nazionale
up more than half of the positive cases. The NGO Repubblika condemned the
contro le discriminazioni nello
Prime Minister’s use of language, suggesting it could incite racial prejudice. The
sport). The first soccer league (Lega
Serie A) joined the Observatory. It African Media Association told FRA that it believes the pandemic is being used
committed to consistently monitor as a pretext for imposing disproportionate measures on migrants compared to
and review discrimination in sports, the local population, and for not rescuing migrants at sea.
with a particular focus on youth and
grassroots, and to submit periodic In Croatia, some media reported on migrants in a manner that spreads disinformation
reports and analysis on the matter. and incites fear. Some journalists no longer use the terms refugees or migrants,
The common goal of the first soccer but refer to people crossing the borders to Croatia as “illegals”.
league and UNAR is to educate the
next generations, through training In Austria, the Antidiscrimination Office Styria (Antidiskriminierungsstelle
activities and workshops dedicated Steiermark) told FRA that they documented 72 insults between 1 April and 30
to the youth sectors, players, September 2020 in the region of Styria, with some 40 % based on ethnicity, some
and managers. 20 % each on multiple discrimination and religion, and 16-19 % on anti-Muslim
content.

In Poland, there were new developments regarding a case brought up by the

Ombudsperson, concerning an anti-immigrant commercial issued by the ruling
Law and Justice (PiS) party on 17 October 2018. Over the course of the past two
years, the Ombudsperson requested the District Prosecutor in Warsaw to initiate
proceedings to determine whether the commercial evokes hatred or other strong
emotions toward migrants, refugees, and other minorities. After the District
Prosecutor repeatedly refused to look into the case, the Ombudsperson appealed
the prosecutor’s decision to the District Court in Warsaw-Mokotóv.

38
The court found that the commercial may have attempted to create a wrong
understanding of terms such as “refugee” and “migrant”, and may have used
stereotypical presentations of migrant issues that may inspire viewers to take
action against minorities. The court referred the matter back to the District
Prosecutor for re-examination. However, the prosecutor again discontinued the
proceeding on 11 September 2020. The Ombudsperson again appealed to the court.

In Spain, the Ministry of the Interior published its Annual National Report on Hate
crimes in July 2020, concluding that the incidents increased by 6.8 % in 2019 in
comparison with the previous year. Those motivated by racism and xenophobia
increased the most (20.9 %), from 426 in 2018 to 515 in 2019. A total of 1,706
cases were recorded in 2019, compared to 1,598 in 2018.

In Spain, according to the media, the Malaga Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a
criminal complaint seeking the closure of a digital newspaper and four years of
imprisonment for its director, for publishing articles that amounted to hate speech
against the migrant community.

In Sweden, anti-Muslim demonstrations took place in Malmö in August 2020 despite

a prohibition by the police, leading to subsequent disturbances throughout the
city. One group kicked around a copy of the Koran and was subsequently reported
for agitation against an ethnic or national group. Another group burnt a Koran
in a part of the city where many persons with foreign background live. As of 1
October 2020, the group who burnt the Koran had not been reported to the police.

The Stockholm City Mission notes an increase of reports to the police about hate
crimes against destitute EU migrants. They are generally forced to keep moving
from public place to place, and are subjected to violence.

In the Netherlands, the media reported that a lesbian asylum applicant was
attacked by other asylum applicants in a reception centre. According to a report
by the NGO LGBT Asylum Support, 75 anti-LGBT incidents happened in reception
centres between 1 June and 4 September 2020.

In Serbia, an anti-immigrant Facebook group distributing fake news and hate

speech is gaining increasing numbers of followers. The NGO Belgrade Centre
for Human Rights launched an online campaign responding to each item of fake
news with facts; this provoked around 100 negative comments per post, some
containing severe levels of hate speech.

39
ANNEX – Stakeholders contacted for information (September 2020) COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED VIA E-MAIL

AUSTRIA → Federal Ministry of the Interior, Department V/9/a (Bundesministerium für

Inneres, Abteilung V/9/a Grundversorgung und Bundesbetreuung);
→ Federal Ministry of the Interior, Department V/8 (Bundesministerium für Inneres,
Abteilung V/8 Asyl und Fremdenwesen);
→ Federal Ministry of the Interior, Criminal Intelligence Service, Competence
Centre for Missing Children (Bundesministerium für Inneres, Bundeskriminalamt,
Kompetenzzentrum für Abgängige Personen);
→ Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism (Bundesamt für
Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung, BVT);
→ Austrian Ombudsperson Board (Volksanwaltschaft);
→ Antidiscrimination Office Styria (Antidiskriminierungsstelle Steiermark);
→ Caritas Vienna (Caritas Wien);
→ Austrian Red Cross (Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz).

BELGIUM → Immigration Office (Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken/Office des Étrangers);

→ FEDASIL – Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Federaal
agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers/Agence fédérale pour l’accueil des
demandeurs d’asile);
→ Ministry of Justice (unaccompanied refugee children unit);
→ Myria – Federal Migration Centre (Federaal Migratiecentrum/Centre fédéral
Migration);
→ Jesuit Refugee Service Belgium;
→ Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen NGO.

BULGARIA → State Agency for Refugees (SAR) (Държавна агенция за бежанците, ДАБ);
→ Ministry of the Interior, Directorate General Border Police (MoI – DGBP)
(Министерство на вътрешните работи, Главна дирекция „Гранична полиция”,
МВР – ГДГП);
→ Ombudsperson of the Republic of Bulgaria, National Preventive Mechanism and
Fundamental Human rights and Freedoms Directorate (Омбудсман на Република
България, Дирекция „Национален превантивен механизъм и основни права
и свободи на човека”);
→ State Agency for Child Protection (SACP) (Държавна агенция за закрила на
детето, ДАЗД);
→ Ministry of the Interior, Directorate General National Police (MoI – DGNP)
(Министерство на вътрешните работи, Главна дирекция „Национална
полиция”, МВР – ГДНП);
→ UNHCR Bulgaria (based on weekly updates, other reports and information
presented during the regular meetings of the Working Group on Integration
of Beneficiaries of International Protection in Bulgaria (Работна група по
интеграция на лица с предоставена международна закрила в България)
coordinated by UNHCR);
→ Bulgarian Red Cross, Refugee Migrant Service (BRC – RMS) (Български червен
кръст, Бежанско-мигрантска служба, БЧК – БМС);
→ Center for Legal Aid Voice in Bulgaria (Център за правна помощ – Глас в
България).

40
COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED VIA E-MAIL

CROATIA → Centre for Peace Studies (Centar za mirovne studije);

→ Croatian‌ ‌Law‌ ‌Centre‌ ‌(Hrvatski‌ ‌pravni‌ ‌centar);
→ Croatian Red Cross (Hrvatski crveni križ);
→ Jesuit Refugee Service (Isusovačka služba za izbjeglice);
→ Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy (Ministarstvo rada,
mirovinskog sustava, obitelji i socijalne politike);
→ ‌Médecins du Monde-BE (Liječnici svijeta);
→ Ombudsperson for Children (Pravobraniteljica za djecu);
→ Rehabilitation Centre for Stress and Trauma (Rehabilitacijski centar za stres i
traumu);
→ The Office of the Ombudswoman (Ured pučke pravobraniteljice);
→ The State Attorney’s Office (Državno odvjetništvo);
→ Welcome! Initiative (Inicijativa Dobrodošli).

CYPRUS → Asylum Service (Υπηρεσία Ασύλου), Ministry of the Interior (Υπουργείο

Εσωτερικών);
→ Social Welfare Office (Υπηρεσίες Κοινωνικής Ευημερίας), Ministry of Labour,
Welfare and Social Insurance;
→ Menoyia Detention Centre (Χώρος Κράτησης Μεταναστών Μενόγειας –
ΧΩΚΑΜ), Ministry of Justice and Public Order (Υπουργείο Δικαιοσύνης και
Δημόσιας Τάξης);
→ UNHCR Representation in Cyprus (Αντιπροσωπεία της Ύπατης Αρμοστείας του
ΟΗΕ για τους πρόσφυγες στην Κύπρο);
→ Cyprus Refugee Council (Κυπριακό Συμβούλιο για τους Πρόσφυγες) (NGO acting
as implementing partner of UNHCR, offering legal, social and other assistance to
asylum applicants and refugees);
→ Legal expert of the University of Cyprus (Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου) advising the
Ministry of Justice and Public Order (Υπουργείο Δικαιοσύνης και Δημόσιας
Τάξης) on human rights;
→ KISA (Κίνηση γία Ισότητα, Στήριξη και Αντιρατσισμό- ΚΙΣΑ) national NGO
offering support to migrants and refugees.

DENMARK → Danish Ministry of Justice (Justitsministeriet), including the Danish National Police
(Rigspolitiet);
→ Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen);
→ The Danish Parliamentary Ombudsperson (Folketingets Ombudsmand);
→ Danish Refugee Council (Dansk Flygtningehjælp);
→ Danish Red Cross (Dansk Røde Kors);
→ Amnesty International Denmark;
→ SOS Racism (SOS Racisme);
→ UNHCR Regional Representation for Northern Europe.

41
ANNEX – Stakeholders contacted for information (September 2020) COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED VIA E-MAIL

FRANCE → Ministry of the Interior (Ministère de l’Intérieur);

→ Maritime Prefecture of the Channel and the North Sea (Préfecture Maritime
de la Manche et de la Mer du Nord);
→ Public Defender of Rights (Le Défenseur des droits – DDD), General Authority
and Department for the Protection of the Rights of the Child;
→ Controller General of Places of Deprivation of Liberty (Contrôleur général
des lieux de privation de liberté – CGLPL);
→ National Consultative Commission on Human Rights
(Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme – CNCDH);
→ National Association of Border Assistance for Foreigners
(Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers – ANAFÉ);
→ La Cimade NGO (Inter-Movement Committee for Evacuees – Comité inter
mouvements auprès des évacués);
→ Doctors of the World (Médecins du Monde);
→ Service centre for migrants in Calais (Plateforme de service
aux migrants à Calais).

GERMANY → Jesuit Refugee Service (Jesuitenflüchtlingsdienst – JRS);

→ Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minors (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete
minderjährige Flüchtlinge – BumF);
→ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Berlin (UNHCR);
→ Migration Commission of the Catholic German Bishops Conference - DBK’s
Migration Commission (Migrationskommission der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz);
→ Federal Working Group of Psycho-Social Support Centres for Refugees and
Victims of Torture (Bundesweite Arbeitsgemeinschaft der psychosozialen Zentren
für Flüchtlinge und Folteropfer – BAfF);
→ German Red Cross (Deutsches Rotes Kreuz);
→ Federal Workers‘ Welfare Association (Bundesverband der Arbeiterwohlfahrt
AWO);
→ Berlin Refugee Council (Flüchtlingsrat Berlin e.V.);
→ The Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family
Berliner Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Familie).

GREECE → Hellenic Police Headquarters - Migration Management Division (Αρχηγείο Ελληνικής

Αστυνομίας-Τμήμα Διαχείρισης Μετανάστευσης);
→ The Greek Asylum Service (Ελληνική Υπηρεσία Ασύλου);
→ National Commision for Human Rights (Εθνική Επιτροπή Δικαιωμάτων του
Ανθρώπου);
→ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Greece
(Ύπατη Αρμοστεία του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες);
→ Racist Violence Recording Network (Δίκτυο Καταγραφής Περιστατικών Ρατσιστικής
Βίας);
→ Greek Council for Refugees (Ελληνικό Συμβούλιο για τους Πρόσφυγες);
→ Hellenic League for Human Rights (Ελληνική Ένωση για τα Δικαιώματα του
Ανθρώπου);
→ Solidarity Now (Αλληλεγγύη για όλους);
→ Greek Forum for Migrants (Ελληνικό Φόρουμ Προσφύγων).

42
COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED VIA E-MAIL

HUNGARY → Ministry of the Interior (Belügyminisztérium);

→ Ministry of Human Capacities (Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma);
→ National Headquarters of the Police (Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság);
→ National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti
Főigazgatóság);
→ UNHCR Hungary;
→ Migrant Solidarity Group of Hungary (Migráns Szolidaritás – MigSzol);
→ Hungarian Association for Migrants (Menedék Migránsokat Segítő Egyesület);
→ Cordelia Foundation (Cordelia Alapítvány).

ITALY → Ministry of Labour and Social Policies;

→ Ministry of the Interior;
→ Public Security Department of the Ministry of the Interior – Directorate General for
Immigration and Border Police (Ministero dell’Interno Dipartimento della Pubblica
Sicurezza - Direzione Centrale dell’Immigrazione e della Polizia delle Frontiere);
→ National Commission for the Right of Asylum (Commissione Nazionale per il
Diritto d’Asilo) of the Ministry of the Interior;
→ Authority for the Protection of People who are Detained or Deprived of their
Personal Freedom (Garante nazionale per i diritti delle persone detenute o private
della libertà personale);
→ Authority for the Protection of Childhood and Adolescence (Autorità Garante per
l’Infanzia e l’Adolescenza);
→ National Office against Racial Discrimination (Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni
Razziali, UNAR);
→ Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (Associazione per gli studi giuridici
sull’immigrazione, ASGI);
→ Italian Refugees Council (Consiglio Italiano per i Rifugiati, CIR);
→ NGO ‘Doctors for Human Rights’ (Medici per i diritti umani, MEDU);
→ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);
→ ‘Melting Pot Europa’ project;
→ Observatory for the Security against Discriminations of the Italian Police
(Osservatorio per la Sicurezza Contro gli Atti Discriminatori – OSCAD);
→ Chronicles of Ordinary Racism (Cronache di ordinario razzismo).

MALTA → Ministry for Home Affairs, National Security and Law Enforcement – Hate Crime
and Hate Speech Unit;
→ International Protection Agency (formerly the Office of the Refugee
Commissioner);
→ Office of the Commissioner for Children;
→ NGO ‘KOPIN’;
→ NGO ‘African Media Association’.

NETHERLANDS → Dutch Council for Refugees (Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland);

→ Amnesty International – Netherlands;
→ Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens);
→ Defence for Children the Netherlands;
→ Ministry for Justice and Security: central information point, providing information
on behalf of: Immigration and Naturalisation Service, Aliens Police, Central Agency
for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (all members of the so-called ‘Alien Chain’);
→ Stichting LOS (knowledge centre for people and organisations that support
migrants in an irregular situation);
→ UNICEF the Netherlands;
→ NIDOS (independent family guardian organisation, fulfilling the guardianship task
for Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers).

43
ANNEX – Stakeholders contacted for information (September 2020) COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED VIA E-MAIL

NORTH → Ministry of Interior;

MACEDONIA → Ombudsperson;
→ UNHCR North Macedonia;
→ IOM North Macedonia;
→ Jesuit Refugee Service JRS;
→ NGO Legis (НВО Легис);
→ NGO Helsinki Committee of Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia
(НВО Хелсиншки комитет за човекови права на Република Македонија);
→ NGO EUROTHINK – Center for European Strategies.

POLAND → Ombudsperson (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich – RPO);

→ Ombudsperson for Children (Rzecznik Praw Dziecka – RPD);
→ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Office in Poland;
→ Border Guard, Border Guard Headquarters (Straż Graniczna – SG);
→ Police, Police Headquarters (Policja);
→ Head of the Office for Foreigners (Szef Urzędu do spraw Cudzoziemców – UDSC);
→ Association for Legal Intervention (Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej – SIP);
→ Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka – HFPC);

SPAIN → Asylum and Refugee Office of the Spanish Ministry of the Interior
(Oficina de Asilo y Refugio del Ministerio del Interior – OAR);
→ Spanish Ombudsperson (Defensor del Pueblo);
→ UNHCR (Oficina de la Agencia de la ONU para los Refugiados en España – ACNUR);
→ Spanish Committee of UNICEF (Comité español de UNICEF);
→ Spanish Observatory for Racism and Xenophobia (Observatorio Español del
Racismo y la Xenofobia, OBERAXE);
→ Spanish Refugee Aid Commission (Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado –
CEAR);
→ Jesuit Migrant Service (Servicio Jesuita Migrantes);
→ General Directorate for International Protection Programs of the Ministry of
Labour Ministry of Labour, Migration and Social Security (Subdirección General
de Programas de Protección Internacional del Ministerio de Trabajo Ministerio de
Trabajo, Migraciones y Seguridad Social);
→ Chair of Refugees and Forced Migrants of Comillas ICAI-ICADE, INDITEX
(Cátedra de Refugiados y Migrantes Forzosos de Comillas ICAI-ICADE, INDITEX).

SERBIA → Asylum Office;

→ Asylum Commission;
→ Humanitarian Center for Integration and Tolerance;
→ Shelter for Foreigners;
→ INDIGO- Group for Children and Youth;
→ UNHCR Serbia.

SWEDEN → Swedish Migration Agency, Department of digitalisation and development

(Migrationsverket, enheten för digitalisering och utveckling);
→ Swedish Migration Agency, Statistics Department;
→ Swedish Migration Agency, Detention Department;
→ Swedish Police Authority, Border Department;
→ Save the Children Sweden (Rädda barnen);
→ Red Cross Sweden (Röda Korset);
→ The Swedish Refugee Law Centre (Asylrättscentrum);
→ Stockholm City Mission (Stockholms Stadsmission);
→ Swedish Church (Svenska Kyrkan);
→ Amnesty Sweden.

44
45

PROMOTING AND PROTECTING
YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ACROSS THE EU ―

For FRA’s work on migration, please see:

https://fra.europa.eu/en/themes/asylum-migration-and-borders

FRA – EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

© FRA, 2020
fra.europa.eu – [email protected]
facebook.com/fundamentalrights © Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union, 2020
twitter.com/EURightsAgency ISSN 2599-8900
linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency TK-AP-20-004-EN-N