Thread by @AdrianaTdn

THREAD – Yesterday @EU_Commission launched its #Pact on Migration and Asylum, which includes a political communication and legislative proposals.

Some thoughts on the #EUMigration pact proposed 'gateway' into the EU and its asylum system: Screening procedures

1/A foreword: The pact insists on a dangerous fiction: people crossing borders irregularly and going through screening and border procedures are not ‘on EU territory’.

This must not be an attempt by the EU of avoiding responsibility for asylum-seekers and migrants at the border

2/Member states would still be exercising jurisdiction and control over these people and be responsible for violations against them

See CJEU on Hungary’s transit zones: amnesty.org/en/latest/news… - end of foreword

3/In the Regulation proposal in the EU pact, screening procedures are a combination of health/security checks immediately applied to people crossing irregularly, rescued via SAR operations or apprehended on the territory if there are ‘indications’ that they entered irregularly ⬇️

4/The possibility to 'screen' people apprehended on the territory is concerning as the proposal does not define what can constitute an ‘indication’ of irregular entry, even though this has dire implications for the individual (restriction of liberty and thorough data collection)

5/Screening procedures can last up to 5 days in normal circumstances, and up to 10 in exceptional ones.

While this may not seem like a long time, it is significant if one considers that people seeking protection who undergo this process are in practice in a legal limbo.

6/At the end of the screening, people who are not found to have a right to enter the EU are referred to asylum or returns procedures.

However it is specified that if a person applies for asylum once apprehended or during the screening they “should be considered applicants”.

7/Here comes a dangerous ambiguity: while asylum-seekers are 'considered' such during the screening, this means little in practice as they wont benefit from EU asylum law guarantees (their application is not registered, they are not informed of their asylum rights/obligations).

8/Worse, the EU ‘reception conditions’ directive, which sets living standards for asylum-seekers, including on the use of detention, also apply only once screening ends
One is left to wonder what “being considered an asylum-seeker” even means if it doesn’t grant you basic rights

9/‘Vulnerability' and 'special needs' checks also raise questions, as the foreseen follow-up seems weak.

For example, those found to have special ‘procedural needs’ are not automatically excluded from border/accelerated procedures.
This seems to follow Greece’s bad example.

10/Preliminary health screening can be wholly skipped if considered unnecessary "because the overall condition of the person appears to be VERY GOOD”
Considering the potential length of the screening, the subtle nature of some vulnerabilities or medical needs, this is concerning.

11/Also regrettable that the use of detention during screening is not expressly excluded but left up to member states.
As said, considering that asylum-seekers do not receive special reception conditions during screening, does it mean they can be detained as irregular migrants?

12/ On a positive note, the monitoring mechanism included in the proposal should extend its reach to the entirety of the screening process.

The proposal also calls for the involvement by member states of child-protection and anti-trafficking authorities at this stage.

13/From a first read @amnesty noted that the EU's fresh start seems more like a false start, lacking ambition and showing that key lessons have not been learned amnesty.eu/news/eu-migrat…

Read our thoughts on specifics at: @evegeddie @AmnestyEU @marsemavi @matteodebellis /END

@BaldacciniAnne @Elisa_De_Pieri @Jelena_Sesar @maxmoratti69