28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Statewatch
report and analysis
EU: “safe and dignified”, voluntary or “forced”
repatriation to “safe” third countries
The European Union's policy on repatriating rejected asylum-seekers and "illegal" residents is now openly based on "voluntary" and "forced" repatriation to be carried out in a "safe and dignified" manner.
This is to be backed up by two other moves. First, the Declaration
that asylum-seekers from the ten EU applicant countries will
automatically be refused and returned because they are "safe"
countries (Justice and Home Affairs Council, 14-15 October).
Second, the Conclusions of the Seville EU Summit in June which
threatened trade and aid sanctions against third world countries
who refuse to accept readmission agreements - with the automatic
repatriation of their own nationals, people who may have passed
through their country on the way to the EU and any stateless
people in similar situations.
Applicant states "safe" third countries
The decision of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 14-15
October to declare the ten EU applicant countries "safe"
to return asylum-seekers is highly questionable. The United Nations
High Commission for Refugees says that no country can be declared
100 per cent safe and that each application should be considered
individually.
In its report of 23 October the UK Joint Committee on human rights
concluded that: "in view of the well authenticated threats
to human rights which remain in the states seeking accession
to the EU.. we consider that a presumption of safety is unacceptable
on human rights grounds".
This position is given added weight by the European Commission's
own updated reports on the accession countries. The latest, for
2002, include the following conclusions: Estonia (use of force
by police, arbitrary detention); Czech Republic (widespread discrimination
against Roma); Hungary (degrading treatment by police, especially
of Roma); Latvia (bad conditions at asylum detention centres);
Lithuania (degrading treatment by law enforcement officials);
Slovakia (degrading police treatment of people, especially Roma)
and Slovenia (instances of the use of excessive force by police
against people in custody, particularly Roma).
Readmission agreements and “sources” of migration
When it comes to readmission agreements there is no pretence
that the countries to which people are to be returned are "safe",
it is simply an "obligation" to readmit people as determined
by the EU. Third world countries who refuse, or who are "non-cooperative",
will face "appropriate measures" which could include
a "review" of the "allocation" of funds to
combat poverty (Seville point 11).
The Seville Conclusions go beyond the imposition of readmission
agreements. The EU is demanding that any country which is the
"source" of a "migratory flow" adopt a whole
series of measures to prevent people entering and leaving (the
first named countries are: Albania, China, Morocco, Russia and
Turkey).
The measures include "joint integrated border management
programmes [and] comprehensive control measures". Where
these plans "do not provide the expected result" the
country will be "invited" to cooperate and adopt further
measures or face political and economic sanctions.
Conclusion
The new EU's plans for the expulsion of "illegal residents"
is based on the post-11 September assumption that such people
are a potential terrorist (or criminal) threat to the internal
security of the EU. This has been reinforced by the rise of rightwing
and racist political parties in EU Member States who are now
in government in a number of countries. In order to marginalise
them, mainstream political parties have adopted many of the policies
advocated by the parties of the extreme right - with the main
target being refugees, asylum-seekers and "illegal"
residents. Their motivation has not been based on principle but
rather to remove challenges to their hold on power.
Statewatch analysis
- EU: “safe and dignified” repatriation
With a comprehensive
expulsion policy taking shape deportations from the EU are set
to rise dramatically. This analysis examines the Commission’s
Communication and EU plans to implement it
In April 2002, the Commission released a Green Paper on an
EU policy on "return" (expulsion, deportation or repatriation)
from the EU. In line with the Council of the European Union (the
15 EU governments) it says that the EU has to develop a detailed
policy on expulsion of migrants who do not have documents authorising
them to enter and reside or whose documents authorising them
to reside have expired ("irregular migrants"). This
was the first time that the Commission had issued a Green Paper
on any aspect of EU immigration or asylum law. The purpose of
EU "Green Papers" is to launch a wide-ranging public
discussion on whether the EU should have a policy on a particular
subject at all and what the content of that policy should be.
Usually, the Commission leaves a year or more after the submission
of the Green Paper so that there is time for national parliaments,
the European Parliament, civil society, EU consultative bodies
and national executives to comment on the issues.
For this Green Paper, the Commission organised a public hearing
on 16 July 2002, at which civil society groups who came to speak
were allotted the princely period of five minutes each to respond
to the Green Paper. The deadline for submissions was 31 July
2002.
With the ink hardly dry on the Green Paper the Council of the
European Union adopted a list of third countries (and criteria)
with whom re-admission agreements (accepting the return of people)
should be negotiated. The EU Summit in Seville, under the Spanish
EU Presidency, on 21-22 June endorsed the plan in the Green Paper
and half-formulated policies on expulsion.
On 11 July the incoming Danish EU Presidency circulated a draft
programme on expulsion including "forced and voluntary return".
It set the deadline for the adoption of a "Return/Repatriation
Programme" at the November meeting of the Justice and Home
Affairs Council. In June the German government put forward a
resurrected proposal for a Directive on transit by air and expulsions
(see below). On 14 October the Commission issued a formal Communication
based on the so-called consultations.
"Return policy on illegal residents"
The Commission's Communication advocates the "return"
(expulsion/repatriation) of all "illegal residents",
that is, those who do not "fulfil the conditions for entry
to, presence in or residence" in the EU. The objective is
the adoption of a:
"general policy on the return of illegal residents, valid
for all regions or countries of origin or transit"
This extends to those who asylum claim has been rejected, those
who overstay their visas or residence permits and resident third-country
nationals who pose a threat to national security or public order.
It should be noted that people coming from the "white list"
of countries (eg: USA, Canada, Australia and Japan) who do not
need visas to enter are quite unaffected by this plan.
The argument in the Communication is, at times, quite tortuous
in self-justification. It quite openly recognises that:
"where voluntary return fails, the forced return of illegal
residents becomes a necessity.. The possibility of forced return
is essential to ensure that admission policy is not undermined
and to enforce the rule of law.. A credible policy of forced
returns helps to ensure public acceptance for more openness towards
persons who are in real need of protection, and for.. labour-driven
migration"
"Labour-driven migration" is a reference to the
emerging EU policy whereby people with skills needed to maintain
EU economies are encouraged to come for fixed terms as distinct
from people fleeing poverty and persecution.
The Commission, in line with the Council, argues that:
"Third countries must readmit their own nationals unlawfully
present in a Member State and, under the same conditions, nationals
of other countries who can be shown to have passed through their
territories before arriving in the EU"
The "smooth and timely return of illegal residents"
is hampered, according to the Commission, by the "lack of
willingness to return voluntarily" and "resistance
to return".
The main problem for the EU in operating an expulsion policy
is partly because third world countries are highly reluctant
to accept people back and create the complex infrastructure needed
for reception, housing, employment etc. This is compounded by
the fact that many "illegal residents" do not hold
identification papers from their country of origin - so, in turn,
third world countries refuse to accept undocumented people.
The EU's main device for getting round this problem is to issue
its own travel documents, the EU's laissez-passer. To this will
be added the European Visa Identification System. When in place
this will include the storage of an "electronic photo or
other biometric identifier combined with the scan of the travel
document shown by the visa applicant" on a "central
database". The objective is to: "identify people without
the need for their cooperation".
The idea of "joint return operations" is gaining currency
too by the bringing together of people to be deported to a country
from different EU states. Small numbers of returnees may be placed
on normal flights including escorted and restrained (ie: tied
down by some means) returns - providing passengers and especially
the air crew do not object. Some EU states "use small charter
jets in cases of non-compliant forced returns". However,
larger charter flights are increasingly being used "with
the necessary escorts", but this is costly "when the
capacity cannot be fully utilised". The Commission says
this:
"often happens due to the unavailability of the returnee
because of absconding, illness or major resistance of the returnee
or legal action at a very late stage to avoid removal"
So instead of flight from individual countries "joint operations"
with "voluntary and forced returns" are to be encouraged
(see below).
Overall the Commission's Communication is so totally in step
with decisions already made by the Council it is hard to see
what the Commission's role is, except perhaps to find some of
the money to finance the plan.
EU Ministers declare applicant countries "safe"
to send back asylum-seekers
The meeting of the EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg
on 14-15 October took two steps to ensure that thousands of asylum-seekers
arriving in EU countries from central and eastern Europe can
be sent straight back without their claim for asylum being considered.
The Declaration by EU Ministers (see below) says that from the
"day of signature of accession treaties" the ten central
and eastern European states due to join the EU in January 2004
will be considered "safe" countries of origin and that
applications for asylum from nationals from those countries will
be considered as "manifestly unfounded". The applicant
states are expected to sign the accession treaties next spring.
The ten countries are: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.
The Justice and Home Affairs Council argues that all the applicant
countries are "safe" and "democratic" and
are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and
introducing the full justice and home affairs acquis (including
the Schengen provisions).
The presumption that all the applicant countries are "safe"
to send back asylum-seekers to is highly questionable. There
have been a number of cases where it has been judged that, for
example, it cannot be considered "safe" to return Roma
to certain of these countries. Moreover, the presumption that
proper democratic and legal standards are already in place in
all the applicant countries is not borne out by the evaluations
carried out by the Commission which says that much progress is
needed before the justice and home affairs acquis is being fully
implemented. In the implementation of the Schengen acquis (which
is now part of the overall EU acquis) it is reported that this
will not be fully implemented for years to come.
The Austrian proposal
In a linked demand the Austrian government put forward a more
far-reaching proposal which the JHA Council agreed should be
considered by the European Commission and that it should "report
back to the Council as soon as possible". The Austrian government
proposal calls for a binding Regulation on all EU Member States
for "a European list of safe third countries" to which
people could automatically be returned to be adopted by the end
of the year.
The list of countries proposed by Austria covers the ten applicant
countries due to join the EU in January 2004 plus Norway, Switzerland,
Iceland, Bulgaria and Romania.
Source: Common European list of safe third
countries, Note from the Austrian delegation, doc no 12454/02.
The Declaration by the JHA Council reads as follows:
"We, the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the
Member States of the European Union, having met in Luxembourg
on 15 October 2002,
Whereas:
The negotiations with the Candidate States with which negotiations
on accession to the European Union have been initiated have made
considerable progress, in particular in the field of justice
and home affairs;
Upon accession, those Candidate States will become bound by the
Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European
Union, annexed by the Treaty of Amsterdam to the Treaty establishing
the European Community;
In the meantime, the Member States are resolved, as from the
day of signature of accession treaties, to deal with applications
for asylum lodged by nationals of those Candidate States, on
the basis of the presumption that they are manifestly unfounded;
The exercise of any decision-making power of each individual
Member State in asylum matters will take place with due respect
of obligations under international law, and in particular obligations
under the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees
and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms;
Declare the following:
Given the level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms
by the Candidate States, Member States agree to the presumption
that Candidate States with which an accession treaty is being
negotiated are safe countries of origin for all legal and practical
purposes in relation to asylum matters, as from the date of signature
of such accession treaty.
Accordingly, any application for asylum of a national of any
such Candidate State shall be dealt with on the basis of the
presumption that it is manifestly unfounded, without affecting
in any way, whatever the cases may be, the decision-making power
of the Member State concerned."
EU seeking readmission (repatriation) agreements with 11 countries
The meeting of the EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA)
on 14-15 October received a report from the European Commission
on progress being made to get readmission agreements with seven
countries (Morocco, Sri Lanka, Russia, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Macao
and Ukraine) and the drafting of negotiating mandates for a further
four countries (Albania, Algeria, China and Turkey). The purpose
of readmission agreements is to introduce an obligation on the
third country to automatically readmit its nationals and stateless
people coming from or having lived in that country.
The EU brings to bear economic (trade and aid), diplomatic and
political pressure on third countries to sign readmission agreements
which are described as "an extremely useful and efficient
instrument in the fight against illegal immigration" (JHA
Council press release, 15.10.02). The JHA Council emphasised
the importance of an expected report from the European Commission
on the financial cost of:
"- the repatriation of illegal immigrants and rejected
asylum-seekers,
- for the management of external borders,
- for asylum and migration projects in third countries... in
particular in order to conclude readmission agreements"
Although still awaiting this report the JHA Council concluded
that:
"A combined action of the European Community and of Member
States in the fight against illegal immigration will be much
more cost-effective than providing support to a growing number
of illegal immigrants"
In simple terms the Council of the European Union is seeking
to justify in terms of "cost-effective" measures, not
of rights and obligations: the automatic return of asylum-seekers
from third countries through readmission agreements or to EU
applicant countries in central and eastern Europe (see: EU Ministers
declare applicant countries "safe" to send back asylum-seekers)
plus the tracing and repatriation of "illegal" immigrants
living in the EU combined with effective external border controls.
This is "much more cost effective" than having to entertain
lengthy asylum procedures and the cost of housing and looking
after people who have fled from persecution and poverty.
The report from the European Commission on: "Community readmission
agreements - state of negotiations" (for text see below)
dated 10 October shows that of the state of play with the seven
selected countries as follows:
1. Morocco: although the EU's demand for a readmission agreement
was formally sent in May 2001 there has been "no formal
response" and after two informal meetings this year it is
concluded that: "Morocco did not agree to launch formal
negotiations".
2. Pakistan: although the EU's demand for a readmission agreement
was formally sent in April 2001 there has been "no formal
response" and no informal meetings.
3. Russia: although the EU's demand for a readmission agreement
was formally sent in April 2001 there has been "no formal
response" despite "repeated contact at diplomatic level".
4. Sri Lanka: a final text was "initialled" in Brussels
in July 2002 and the Commission is starting "the two-step
ratification procedure" (agreement by both sides).
5. Hong Kong: this is likely to be "the first ever Community
readmission agreement". The agreement was initialled in
November 2001 and on 23 September 2002 the Commission was authorised
to sign on behalf of the EU.
6. Macao: agreement due to be "initialled" on 18 October
2002.
7. Ukraine: text sent in August 2002 and formal negotiations
expected to start in Kiev in November.
Source: Readmission agreements, from the Commission
to the Council: 12625/02, 10.10.02; Criteria for the identification
of third countries with which new admission agreements need to
be negotiated - draft Conclusions: 7990/02, 16.4.02.
Afghanistan "safe" for return
The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28-29 November is
expected to adopt an "EU repatriation plan for Afghanistan"
which for Afghanistan":
"includes voluntary and forced return albeit with voluntary
return as the preferred option"
The proposal is that the European Commission will chair a committee
(ACRG, Afghanistan Coordination Return Group) to coordinate expulsions
by EU Member States. The Commission will provide part of the
funding at the Afghanistan end and, with Member States, arrange
"joint flights" which may be contracted out to international
organisations like the IOM (International Organisation on Migration).
The outstanding problem to be resolved by the November meeting
is "how best to obtain the consent of the Transitional Government
of Afghanistan" both to the repatriations and to the EU
issuing its own Laissez-Passer travel documents.
The whole plan is based on "repatriation by air to Kabul"
and (almost in holiday-like language) "onward travel to
the intended destination".
The "Repatriation model" is defined as:
"The preferred model for return is by voluntary return.
Afghans refusing to avail themselves of voluntary repatriation
may after a passage of reasonable time be repatriated through
forced return by those countries wishing to do so"
In abstract bureaucratic language the plan says that should take
place "in safety and with dignity and in full knowledge
of the facts", that is, about "their repatriation and
reintegration in Afghanistan". After being air-lifted to
Kabul there will be "appropriate reception facilities”
and "full board and lodging for up to X days after arrival"
(the "X" is in the original and is a cost dependent
factor). Then "appropriate onwards transport" will
be arranged and "where relevant" the "escort of
the returnees" (whether this is intended for their safety
or to ensure that they go where they say they are going is not
clear).
Finally, the EU is provide "Information for returnees"
which will include:
"adequate counselling regarding risks of mines and unexploded
ordinance"
Transit by air between EU states
Another proposal resurrected in the EU expulsion plans is one
from the German government, put forward on 12 April 1999, for
a Joint Action (now transposed into a Council Directive) on "Assistance
in cases of transit for the purpose of expulsion by air"
(doc: 7264/99).
A UK Home Office Explanatory Memorandum produced on 24 September
2002 says that the proposals on detention and "the use of
legitimate force" are not covered by current laws. However,
the UK government supports "delivering higher numbers of
sustainable returns" through "safe, dignified removals"
but is worried about the costs.
The 1999 proposal was cleared by the UK parliament in May (House
of Lords) and June (House of Commons) 1999 and now, two and a
half years later, no wider consultation is to take place with
civil society as: "This is an operational matter".
There was no normal EU-wide consultation before the German proposal
was drawn up.
The proposal requires any Member State to assist in the expulsion
of a migrant whenever requested by another Member State. This
will include detaining and:
"using legitimate force to prevent or end any attempt
by the third-country alien to resist transit" (Article 4.3)
Each Member State will automatically have to accept the word
of the Member State requesting assistance that there is no risk
of torture, death or other inhuman or degrading treatment for
the migrant in the state of destination. The requested state
would not be obliged or even permitted to consider whether this
was in fact the case, as long as the officials of the requesting
state have ticked a box on a form asserting that there is no
such risk.
There is no obligation on the requesting state to limit requests
to certain situations, or to consider human rights issues before
deciding to expel and requesting assistance of another Member
State. Moreover, Article 6 of the proposal fails to mention that
observation of the European Convention on Human Rights and other
international human rights treaties (the UN Convention Against
Torture and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) must
also have higher priority than the Directive.
Joint EU expulsion flights for "group returns"
The French government is taking the lead on a project to:
"rationalise expulsion measures, in particular by means
of group returns" (doc no: 11388/02)
The idea of moving migrants to be expelled around the EU for
flight back to a particular country is not new but this proposal
(backed by the Council and the Commission) is intended to "rationalise"
this process.
France has opened talks with Germany and the UK on the possibility
of joint "European charters". The French Ministry of
the Interior with responsibility for expulsion (DLPAJ/DCPAF Directorate
of Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs/Central Border Police Directorate)
is to organise monthly meetings to work out the procedure - which
has to include:
"legal framework; operational constraints (security rules
during flights, composition of escort, requests to overfly third
states etc); diplomatic constraints (issue of consular [EU] laissez-passer,
reception by the authorities of country of destination etc)"
International Organisation on Migration (IOM)
Interestingly all references to the IOM in the Commission's Green
Paper (April, 2002) are omitted from its final Communication
(October, 2002) even though it carried out 87,628 voluntary returns
from the EU in 2000. This may be because it has become the target
of protests and some EU member states are reluctant to draw attention
to the major role played in repatriation by an international
organisation which is not accountable to the EU (see Statewatch
vol 10 no 3/4).
The organisation was created in 1951 by the USA and Belgium as
the "Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement
of migrants from Europe". It is a product of the Cold War
period helping refugees from Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia
in 1968. During this period it acquired a nickname as a "travel
agency" and in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall was
renamed the IOM.
The IOM now has 93 member states and 36 Observer states with
14 EU states (all except Spain) and 8 of the 10 EU applicant
states. It has 19 regional offices and over 100 field offices.
The IOM, under its "Assisted Returns Service", runs:
"a comprehensive migration management system for the
benefit of all parties"
and in working with "migrants and governments" it:
"assists rejected asylum seekers, trafficked migrants,
stranded students, labour migrants and qualified nationals to
return home on a voluntary basis. IOM also works with other organisations
helping repatriate refugees"
Its stated policy is that:
"the migrant's free will is expressed at least through
the absence of refusal to return, eg: by not resisting to board
transportation or not otherwise manifesting disagreement"
Where physical force has to be used on the migrant this is:
"the responsibility of national law enforcement agencies"
However, tests of "voluntariness" is open to question
as far as the role of national governments are concerned. Evidence
from the Netherlands presented to the EU earlier this year suggests
there is a degree of pressure on asylum applicants (doc no: 6660/02).
In the Netherlands the "alien" is told they do not
have any future prospect in the country if their application
fails. The first stage is "preparation and orientation"
for return to the "country of origin" which is "initiated"
when a negative decision is made in the first instance of the
application - that is, before any appeal.
The second stage which follows:
"involves the actual return journey.. the IOM is the
most appropriate partner to organise [it]."
In the UK the "Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme"
(VARP) run by the Immigration and Nationality Department of the
Home Office is "implemented by the IOM and supported by
Refugee Action". Between September 2000 and August 2001
a total of 1,033 asylum-seekers were returned through VARP, the
majority to Albania and Kosovo. An "independent evaluation
by Deloitte and Touche" found "a high level of user-satisfaction"
based on a sample of 65 migrants.
The IOM has been targeted by a number of activist groups - in
Ukraine, Finland, France, Germany, Czech Republic and the UK
- who view its role as implementing unacceptable EU policies.
The Noborder camp in Strasbourg in July called for an international
campaign against the IOM and a protest outside the IOM office
in Helsinki on 11 October closed it down for the day (see: www.noborder.org/iom).
In the Sangatte, France detention centre a IOM video was shown
to dissuade people from coming to the UK, apparently 17 would-be
asylum-seekers out of 17,500 were persuaded to return home (CARF,
Autumn 2002).
How many are being expelled and what happens to them?
Hard figures are hard to come by. A set of figures produced in
May 2000 (EU doc no: 7941/00) gives a total of 166,909 people
expelled from EU countries and Norway. However, there is no breakdown
between voluntary and forced expulsions and an indeterminate
number were simply being re-cycled within the EU - returned to
another EU country from which they arrived. The Commission's
Communication (above) promises that figures will be provided
in 2003.
The largest number were expelled from the UK, 45,100, followed
by Germany (32,223), Austria (20,027), Netherlands (12,204) and
Italy 12,036).
Astonishingly not a single public report is available on what
happens to migrants when they arrive wherever they are taken.
It appears that the EU collectively feels no responsibility for
the lives and welfare of people it expels.
Defining the facilitation of entry, transit and residence
A proposal put forward by France under its Presidency of the
EU in July 2000 finally went through the Justice and Home Affairs
Council on 14-15 October 2002. The original proposal was roundly
criticised by civil society and national parliaments. The European
Parliament was "consulted" and on 15 February 2001
rejected the proposal. The proposal was effectively dead for
18 months but in the post-11 September plans to remove "illegal"
migrants from the EU it was resurrected and adopted.
The reason civil society and the European Parliament called for
the French proposal to be rejected is that it makes it an offence
for:
"any person who intentionally assists a person who is
not a national of a Member State to enter, or transit across,
the territory of a Member State..."
(Art 1.1.a)
There is no test as to whether these acts are undertaken for
financial gain. Thus help from relatives, extended families and
friends and support networks are simply lumped together with
"organised" networks who bring people into the EU in
exchange for money.
Any person who "for financial gain, intentionally assists"
a migrant to reside in the EU is also guilty of an offence. Thus
a person who runs bed and breakfast or a family where the migrant(s)
contribute to the household costs could be caught under this
new offence.
The scope of Article 1 is extended by Article 2 to a person who
is "the instigator.. accomplice or who attempts to commit"
the offences in Article 1.
The only concession the Council has made is in Article 1.2 where
it says that Member State "may decide" not to prosecute
where the "aim of the behaviour is to offer humanitarian
assistance" to enter and transit under Article 1.1.a (but
not to 1.1.b on residence). This option for EU governments at
national level may or may not be exercised and the interpretation
of "humanitarian assistance" will be down to the courts.
The "sanctions" laid down in an accompanying Framework
Decision are for "effective, proportionate and dissuasive
sanctions" (Framework Directive on the penal framework to
prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
doc no: 10075/01).
Sources: Communication from the Commission,
On a Community return policy on illegal residents, COM(2002)
564 final, 14.10.02; Presidency Note, Afghanistan return programme,
doc no: 12605/1/02, 8.10.02; Assistance in cases of transit for
the purposes of expulsion by air, German EU Presdiency, doc no:
7264/99, 12.4.99; Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany
for a Council Directive on assistance in cases of transit for
the purpose of expulsion by air, doc nO: 10386/02, 27.6.02; Explanatory
Memorandum on proposal for a Council Directive in cases of transit
for the purposes of expulsion by air, UK Home Office, 24.10.02;
Proposal for projects, French delegation, doc no: 11388/02, 29.7.02;
Action Programme for Return/Repatriation based on the Commission’s
Green Paper on a Community return policy on illegal residents,
; Action Programme for Return/Repatriation based on the Commission’s
Green Paper on a Community return policy on
illegal residents.
Statewatch
News online
| Join Statewatch news e-mail list | Statewatch
publications
| Statewatch
subscribers websites
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.