Copy
Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

WEEKLY BULLETIN
 
8 May 2025
 

Would you like to receive this and/or other newsletters directly from ECRE?
Subscribe

 
Does your organisation have any recent reports, upcoming events or open job vacancies that you would like to see included in the Weekly Bulletin? Send them to Ben Moore. 
EDITORIAL
EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS

MEDITERRANEAN
NORDIC COUNTRIES
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

GERMANY
NEWS FROM THE ECRE OFFICE  
RECENT REPORTS

EDITORIAL: “But who will pick our olives?” – Demographic decline and refugee inclusion


By Catherine Woollard

Week after week, newspaper articles and research publications sound the alarm on the impact of Europe’s demographic crisis. Last week, a piece put the spotlight on Poland, arguing that this is not just an economic question but one of security. The fear has reached the top of governments: “But who will pick our olives?” was the plaintive cry from Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis ahead of one of last year’s regular Council discussions on how migration is the greatest threat that Europe faces etc, etc.

Greece is not alone in changing its position in the face of the demographic crunch. Spain with a generally more open policy has also just regularised 300,000 people (and is the only EU member state with strong economic performance… coincidence of course); Italy has regularised and opened some safe routes; pro-migration statements have been even been uttered by those very open countries of Poland and Denmark.

Could it be that Europe is approaching a tipping point, where the debate on migration shifts from negative to positive? It may come, but right now we are in a paradoxical situation where policy and law-making exists in acute tension with economic necessity.

Attempting to ride two horses at the same time, European states pursue policies and laws which are ever more hostile, restrictive and punitive, aimed at deterring people from coming to Europe, while at the same time desperately flying around the world trying to attract more immigration, often through dodgy dealings with agencies and governments alike.

One of the most obvious solutions to the demographic challenge is side-stepped or ignored outright: refugee inclusion. Refugees are not there to help Europe with its demographic problems, of course – European states have strict obligations under international and EU law to provide international protection – but a clever refugee inclusion policy would be highly advantageous for Europe as well as benefiting the people themselves.

A few simple steps would suffice.

  1. Wake up!

The extent of the challenge facing Europe is exposed in last year’s World Bank report ‘The Journey Ahead: Supporting Successful Migration in Europe and Central Asia’ which analyses the demographic trends behind labour shortages. What is particularly striking is not the numbers but the geographic scope of the problem: previously, European countries depended on drawing migration from other parts of Europe – from East to West, from North to South, in recent years, from the Western Balkans into the EU, or from the Caucasus into Russia and so on. This is no longer possible – all countries across Europe are affected by the same trends of declining birth rates and rapidly ageing populations.

  1. Be honest with the population

As European states recruit populations from other regions of the world, their current approach is dumb stealth: bring people in and hope no-one notices. All across Europe there are new populations, in some cases highly visible, despite little acknowledgement by politicians and public administrations that they are actually present and even though they may be doing everything from working as doctors in hospitals or front-of-house staff in hotels to driving buses. It is also the case for less visible activities such as managing IT systems, scientific research and factory work. In their aping of the Far Right, many political parties maintain an anti-migration discourse while at the same time supporting migration. Followed by handwringing about why the public doesn’t trust politicians any more… At some point, political leaders have to be more honest.

The state of denial suits certain vested interests. The lack of oversight and regulation and recognition even, means the presence of a pool of people in a precarious situation, highly exploitable. All kinds of issues arise, low pay (no pay in some cases), high dependence on employers for status, business for organised crime, corruption of public administration…

  1. Access first

Before inclusion, access to protection and access to territory are required. Who will pick our olives? Not those who drowned in the Pylos shipwreck. Not those beaten back at the border or kidnapped by balaclavered men jumping out of the back of a transit van. Nor those denied access to an asylum procedure because of the pretence that Türkiye is a safe country.

  1. Support refugee inclusion through practical measures

As well as allowing more regular migration for those without protection needs, now is the moment to invest strongly in refugee inclusion. Most people seeking asylum in Europe are found to need international protection – if they get access to a procedure. They will stay in Europe, possibly for a very long time given that many come from situations of protracted displacement with no chance of return. Integration is a national competence but the EU can support it, with convening powers, expertise and funding. Maintaining EU funding for integration in the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the EU’s seven-year budget which is already under discussion, will again be a battle – inexplicably as it should be a no-brainer.

  1. Prioritise inclusion in implementation of EU asylum law

One of ECRE’s objections to the reforms of EU asylum law was the number of measures that undermine inclusion: it will be harder to get protection for those who need it due to the expansion of second-rate procedures, more people will be in detention and punitive measures such as withdrawing reception conditions will increase destitution and irregularity. Despite foreboding about the impact of these measures, it is not without hope. First, the Pact also integrates changes from the 2016 reform package which had a stronger focus on integration. Second, despite largely taking the form of regulations, considerable discretion remains for member states. Third, there is an opportunity to address longstanding compliance problems which hamper inclusion.

For example, in relation to the first element, the recast of the Reception Conditions Directive brings forward the deadline for granting access to the labour market for most asylum applicants to six rather than nine months. In practice, many states already offer earlier access – and benefit from it. The recast also introduces an obligation to provide language and vocational training to all. Perhaps the issues of sub-standard reception will finally be dealt with. In the Asylum Procedures Regulation, it is possible to prioritise manifestly founded applications to get people through the system; the Crisis Regulation allows the use of expedited procedures.

Member states can make smarter choices, for instance, limiting the use of detention and other restrictions on movement, such as reception in isolated region. Finally, implementing obligations on family reunion – to and within Europe – including those under Dublin / Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, would support inclusion. Response to displacement from Ukraine is again instructive: some countries have had amazing rates of labour market absorption at above 70% (and others less so – see Germany – mainly due to bureaucratic obstacles), and allowing freedom of movement has facilitated family reunification and in turn encouraged inclusion.

All these measures support the independence and self-sufficiency of the people affected, while also benefiting the hosting states. It’s all so obvious yet most European states remain in a state of denial – desperately trying to recruit migrants in order to tackle the economic and indeed existential crises that result from demographic change, while at the same time making harsh, nasty, often openly racist, or otherwise hostile statements that hardly make their countries appealing for those who have a choice, while beating back at the borders those who have no choice but to seek protection. These people are not a resource for our use: international protection is a legal and moral obligation. Nonetheless, humane treatment would also be in Europe’s economic interests. As populations decline, maybe that argument will have more impact than the legal and moral ones.

     
 

EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS


MEDITERRANEAN
  • The Council of Europe (CoE) Commissioner for Human Rights has demanded that Greece adopts a zero-tolerance approach to pushbacks and strengthens border safeguards.
  • A report by the CoE Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) has highlighted the exploitation and trafficking risks faced by people seeking asylum, unaccompanied children and migrant workers in Cyprus.
  • The first deportation from Italy’s repatriation centre in Albania has taken place (via Italy) while an inspection of the facility has revealed alarming conditions.
  • The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has confirmed that the Central Mediterranean migration route is the world’s most deadly, accounting for at least 25,000 deaths since 2014.

The Council of Europe (CoE) has demanded that Greece adopts a zero-tolerance approach to pushbacks and strengthens border safeguards. On 6 May, CoE Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty published a report on his recent fact-finding visit to Greece. He raised concerns about persistent practices of human rights violations, including pushbacks at Greece’s land and sea borders, and urged Greek authorities to adapt a “zero-tolerance approach” to pushbacks and to ensure accountability for abuses against people on move along the country’s borders. He also underlined the importance of creating an environment in which civil society, media and human rights defenders who work to protect the rights of people on the move are able to carry out their activities unhindered. In their written response to the commissioner, the Greek authorities have again denied pushback allegations, claiming: “There is no systematic practice or operational planning of informal returns (‘pushbacks’) of third country nationals from Greece to Türkiye across the borders”. They added that the actions of Greek police officers that were criticised in the CoE report were based on the “lawful prevention of illegal border crossings while migrants are still in Turkish territory and have not yet reached Greece”.

A recent CoE report has highlighted the exploitation and trafficking risks faced by people seeking asylum, unaccompanied children and migrant workers in Cyprus. According to the latest evaluation report published by the CoE Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), although there has been progress in Cyprus, people belonging to those groups were still particularly vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. The expert group found that many migrant workers, especially domestic workers from countries including the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Vietnam, are excluded from minimum wage protections and are tied to specfic jobs through sector-tied visas which increase their dependency and vulnerability to abuse. It also expressed concerns about reports of people seeking asylum in Cyprus being pushed back into the buffer zone, and called for an immediate end to this practice. Regarding children, it emphasised that limited access to healthcare and education, delays in age assessment processes and deficiencies in legal guardianship put unaccompanied and separated children at risk of abuse, exploitation and even trafficking.

The first deportation from the repatriation centre in Albania has taken place (via Italy). On 23 April, a Bangladeshi national who had recently been transferred from Italy to the pre-repatriation detention centre (CPR) in Gjadër, was first transferred back to Italy and then flown to Bangladesh. The entire operation, which required four separate transfers over the course of a week, reportedly cost more than €5,000 – almost double the average cost of a standard deportation which, according to La Repubblica, the Ministry of the Interior recently estimated at €2,800. It has since been revealed that of the 41 people who were transferred to the Gjadër CPR on 11 April, only 25 remained at the facility at the end of the month. According to records seen by opposition MP Cecilia Strada during an inspection visit on 26-27 April, one person had been transferred back to Italy, six had been released following court rulings, five had been declared unfit for detention and four had been repatriated. Strada described the situation in the CPR as “a hell compared to Italian centres” and “a shameful waste”, and expressed concerns about the 35 recorded incidents, including self-harm, that had taken place during the first 13 days of its operation.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has confirmed that the Central Mediterranean migration route is the world’s most deadly. According to data published on 29 April, almost 25,000 people have died along the route since 2014. According to the IOM’s Missing Migrants Project, at least 499 people have died or disappeared in the Mediterranean in 2025 alone. This number may need to be updated soon following a report on 5 May that there were only two survivors after a boat carrying almost 50 people sank in the Central Mediterranean, and six bodies were discovered washed ashore on the Libyan coast on 1 May.

Related articles

     
 

EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS


NORDIC COUNTRIES
  • The Finnish government has announced that it will keep its border with Russia closed until further notice.
  • The Swedish government has restated its plans to increase financial incentives to encourage voluntary returns and is considering limiting the right to legal aid for people seeking asylum and removing the possibility for them to receive permanent residence permits.
  • Norway has lifted its suspension on returning rejected asylum applicants to Lebanon.

The Finnish government has announced that it will keep its border with Russia closed until further notice. On 16 April, the government issued a press release in which it said that the closure, which has been in place since December 2023, was being maintained due to an ongoing risk of instrumentalised migration. “Based on information available to the Finnish authorities, the risk that instrumentalised migration will resume and expand as seen previously remains likely,” it wrote, adding: “If the phenomenon were to continue, it would pose a serious threat to Finland’s national security and public order”. Possibly with a view to accusations of refoulement, it also noted that asylum applications could be submitted “at other border crossing points at Finland’s external borders that are still open for air and maritime traffic”.

The Swedish government has restated its plans to increase financial incentives to encourage voluntary returns. On 2 May, in an interview with the Euronews broadcaster in which he spoke about the “absolute need to get control of migration” and ongoing “problems with the integration of migrants”, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson reiterated his government’s proposal to substantially increase the financial incentive for people who voluntarily return to their countries of origin from the current €900 to €32,000. “We are copying basically the Danish model and raising that sum pretty significantly to make it easier for those who realise that they would prefer to go back to their own country,” he said, adding: “I don’t think that would be a method that works for very many people, but we do have a problem with integration, and if people who have a legal right to stay in Sweden but basically do not integrate, basically do not really appreciate the Swedish way of life, then at least people would think about returning to their country of origin”.

In addition to its plans to increase financial incentives to encourage voluntary returns, the Swedish government is also considering limiting the right to legal aid for people seeking asylum and removing the possibility for them to receive permanent residence permits. Commenting on the proposal to limit legal aid, ECRE member organisation the Swedish Refugee Law Center said that it risked leading to “multiple erroneous decisions and people being deported to countries where they risk persecution or other serious violations of their human rights”. “It also means a significant deterioration in the possibility of a fair hearing, not least for people with special needs in the asylum process, such as children, people with disabilities or people with trauma,” it added. Regarding the proposal to eliminate the possibility of receiving permanent residence permits, the organisation said: “Such a system will create great psychological stress, especially for children, families and others who need security to be able to establish themselves in society”.

Norway has lifted its suspension on returning failed asylum applicants to Lebanon. According to a press release issued by the Directorate of Immigration (UDI) and the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) on 30 April, the decision to lift the suspension, which has been in place since October 2024, was due to the “improved security situation in Lebanon”. As a result,  as of 1 May, people whose asylum applications have been definitively rejected can be returned to Lebanon and the police can carry our forced returns.

Related articles

     
 

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS


GERMANY
  • Friedrich Merz has become chancellor after securing a majority in the Bundestag after an unprecedented two rounds of voting.
  • The new government has announced that it will refuse entry to most people seeking asylum with immediate effect.
  • The domestic intelligence agency has labelled the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in its entirety as an extremist group.
  • The incoming government is considering allowing Syrian refugees to visit their home country for a limited time without losing protection status.
  • There has been a significant increase in the number of attacks on people seeking asylum and their accommodation in Berlin.
  • A court has ruled that two men who filed asylum applications in Germany after previously being granted protection status in Greece can be deported.

Friedrich Merz has become chancellor after securing a majority in the Bundestag (lower house of parliament) after an unprecedented two rounds of voting on 6 May. Earlier in the day, only 317 of the 630 MPs voted for him, despite the three parties in his coalition (Christian Democrat Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU) and Social Democratic Party (SDP)) controlling 328 seats between them. As a result, Merz became the first chancellor in the history of modern Germany to require a second vote, which he won with 325 votes against 289. Commenting on what state broadcaster Deutsche Welle described as a “historic debacle”, ECRE member organisation PRO ASYL posted on social media: “The message is just as clear inside the Bundestag as it is outside: Don’t play with our democracy, Mr. Merz!”. The same organisation had previously described the new government’s coalition agreement as a “blow to refugee protection” in an op-ed published in the ECRE Weekly Bulletin.

The new government has announced that it will refuse entry to most people seeking asylum with immediate effect. On 7 May, Federal Minister of the Interior and Community Alexander Dobrindt told journalists that police had been instructed to turn away undocumented people at the border with exceptions for vulnerable groups, including pregnant women and children. Writing in the Bild newspaper a few days earlier, Dobrindt had insisted that “the numbers of illegal migration must go down” and that “for humanity and order to succeed equally, we need control, clarity, and consistency”. The announcement was immediately criticised by refugee rights organisations. “Now there are also pushbacks at German borders – the new government is not hesitating for long, but is immediately starting to implement its inhumane and in some parts illegal asylum and migration policy,” PRO ASYL posted on social media, adding: “We were on site at the border and are now considering legal action!”.

The domestic intelligence agency has labelled the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in its entirety as an extremist group. On 2 May, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) said that the AfD, which came second in the recent federal election, “aims to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society, to subject them to treatment that violates the constitution, and thereby assign them a legally subordinate status” and that the “ethnicity and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order”. The BfV had previously labelled the AfD in the eastern states of Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt as right-wing extremist groups. The designation of the AfD as an extremist group enables the BfV to increase its monitoring of the party and represents a first step towards a possible ban. Commenting on the decision, outgoing Minister of the Interior and Community Nancy Faeser said: “The AfD represents an ethnic concept that discriminates against entire population groups and treats citizens with a history of migration as second-class Germans”. “Their ethnic attitude is reflected in racist statements, especially against immigrants and Muslims,” she added. On 5 May, the AfD filed a lawsuit to challenge the BfV’s decision.

The incoming government is considering allowing Syrian refugees to visit their home country for a limited time without losing protection status. According to a proposal published by the Ministry of the Interior on 23 April, Syrians with refugee status in Germany would be able to visit their home country for a period of four weeks or two separate two-week periods in order to prepare themselves for a voluntary return at a later date. “To do this, people from Syria must be able to see for themselves – for example whether [their] houses are still standing, whether their relatives are still alive and so on,” said a Ministry of the Interior spokesperson, adding that any visits would only be permitted “under certain strict conditions” and if they would serve to “prepare for a permanent return”. It remains to be seen if the proposal will actually be implemented as it has been rejected by the CSU, the party of the incoming minister of the interior and community. According to the Welt am Sonntag newspaper, in the past six months, protection status revocation proceedings have been initiated against 2,157 people who visited their home countries, including 734 to Syria.

There has been a significant increase in the number of attacks on people seeking asylum and their accommodation in Berlin. According to official data provided in response to a freedom of information request submitted by two Alliance 90/The Greens members of the Berlin House of Representatives, there were 77 assaults on people in 2024 and eight instances of intentional damage to accommodation in the city, compared to 32 attacks on people and none on accommodation in the previous year. “We demand a clear protection plan for refugees, a visible police presence at endangered residences, comprehensive prevention work and, above all, policies that clearly recognise right-wing violence and decisively fight it,” said Jian Omar, one of the two MPs who filed the freedom of information request.

A court has ruled that two men who filed asylum applications in Germany after previously being granted protection status in Greece can be deported. On 16 April, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig ruled that the two men would not face inhumane or degrading conditions if they were sent back to Greece. “It cannot be expected with any significant probability that able-bodied, healthy and single young male beneficiaries of protection returning to Greece will find themselves in extreme material hardship, preventing them from meeting their most basic needs in terms of accommodation, food and hygiene,” the judges said. Although they acknowledged that many protection beneficiaries in Greece “do not have access to state support immediately upon arrival”, they did not consider this as sufficient grounds to prevent them from being returned as they “can likely find accommodation at least in temporary shelters or emergency accommodation with basic facilities, which are operated among other things at the municipal level and by non-governmental organisations”. Two ECRE member organisations, PRO ASYL and Refugee Support Aegean (RSA), have published a joint report which is highly critical of Germany and other countries’ efforts to return protection beneficiaries to Greece. “Over the past year, RSA has represented returnees from countries such as Germany and Switzerland who face severe obstacles in their attempt to integrate,” they noted, adding: “None of them received documents, information, or support upon their return. Many are at immediate risk of homelessness due to the lack of any material assistance”.

Related articles

     
 

NEWS FROM THE ECRE OFFICE


AIDA Country Report on Spain – Update on 2024

The updated AIDA Country Report on Spain provides a detailed overview on legislative and practice-related developments in asylum procedures, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers and content of international protection in 2024. It also includes an annex which provides an overview of temporary protection.

A number of key developments drawn from the overview of the main changes that have taken place since the publication of the update on 2023 are set out below.

Statistics

  • Asylum applications and decisions: Spain received 167,366 asylum applications in 2024. 164,010 of them were from first-time applicants and the main countries of origin were Venezuela, Colombia, Mali, Peru and Senegal. Of the decisions made, 6,355 people were granted refugee status, 11,453 people were granted subsidiary protection and 33,535 people were granted humanitarian protection. The recognition rate for refugee and subsidiary protection was 19.8 (57% including humanitarian status). At the end of 2024, there were 133,102 first instance applications pending.

Asylum procedure

  • Access to the territory: 63,970 people reached Spain by irregular land and sea routes in 2024. This represented a 7.1% increase from the previous year. 46,843 of the arrivals were via the Canary Islands route. An NGO has estimated that 10,457 people, including over 1,500 children and 400 women, died attempting to reach Spain in 2024, and that the vast majority of the deaths occurred along the Canary Islands route.
  • Delays in registration: People seeking asylum continued to experience lengthy waiting times for appointments to lodge applications in 2024. This prompted protests and a complaint to the Ombudsperson.

Reception conditions

  • Challenges in the treatment of unaccompanied minors: The Canary Islands continued to face pressure due to the arrival of large numbers of unaccompanied minors (UAMs). Although the central government presented a relocation plan for 2,500 UAMs, a broader compulsory distribution plan was rejected by the The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and civil society organisations have called for improved responsibility sharing between the various autonomous communities.

Detention of asylum seekers

  • Overcrowding and poor conditions at Madrid Airport: The asylum facilities in Madrid’s Barajas Airport were overwhelmed in mid-2024, in part due to the number of applications submitted by Mauritanian nationals. Legal and structural deficiencies, including a lack of interpreters and basic resources, led to concerns over access to procedures and legal assistance.

Content of international protection

  • Access to rights: Obstacles in access to housing, employment and banking services persisted in 2024, particularly for vulnerable groups such as UAMs and LGBTQIA+ people.
  • Reform of the Immigration Law: A new regulation aimed at regularising up to 300,000 people was adopted in late 2024. However, NGOs criticised the lack of provisions for regularising asylum applicants whose cases were pending. Legal challenges were brought against aspects of the law in early 2025, particularly the exclusion of time spent as asylum applicants from eligibility for residence permits based on “arraigo”.

Temporary protection

  • Statistics and funding: As of February 2025, 236,570 people fleeing Ukraine had been granted temporary protection in Spain, including 36,704 in 2024. Since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Spain has allocated over €1.53 billion to support people fleeing the country.
  • Access to services: Beneficiaries of temporary protection in Spain have immediate access to the labour market and education. By the end of 2024, over 28,000 adults were in employment (mainly hospitality and construction) and almost 40,000 children were enrolled in education. A multilingual information phone line was launched in October 2024.

The full report is available here and the annex on temporary protection is available here.

For more information about the AIDA database or to read other AIDA reports, please visit the AIDA website.

     

NEWS FROM THE ECRE OFFICE


Legal Note: The Cessation of International Protection and Review of Protection Statuses in Europe

ECRE has published a legal note on cessation of international protection and review of international protection statuses in Europe. It is a new version of a similar legal note that was published in 2021, updated to include recent case law and analysis in relation to the transition in Syria. It should be read with the policy note on maintaining international protection in Europe during Syria’s transition that was published in March 2025.

The legal note examines the provisions in the EU’s legal framework on cessation. The 2011 Recast Qualification Directive allows EU member states to issue three-year residence permits to refugees and one-year residence permits to holders of subsidiary protection. The Directive also then allows states to review cases upon expiry of those permits and to revoke a person’s international protection status and residence if circumstances in the country of origin have changed. The legal note considers the changes brought about by the recently-adopted 2024 Qualification Regulation which repeals the 2011 Qualification Directive with effect from June 2026.

Given that the cessation provisions in the two instruments are very similar, case law relating to the 2011 Qualification Directive is likely to continue to be relevant to the 2024 Qualification Regulation. One notable exception is the amendment made to the internal protection alternative (IPA) provisions in Article 8 of the 2024 Qualification Regulation which now obliges member states to apply an IPA in relation to applications for international protection, although only when states and the agents of states are not the actor of persecution.

The legal note also examines state practice of cessation in Europe, where a number of countries have used cessation to revoke the international protection status, including Germany, Norway and Denmark. It is noteworthy that many of those who have had their international protection revoked using cessation are citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria – countries which are either currently in an armed conflict or post-conflict situation. This raises legal issues as to the correct test to be used for cessation where the security situation in a country may continue to be uncertain or precarious. In terms of state practice, the primary provision utilised by states to cease international protection is Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention (reflected in Articles 11 and 16 of the Qualification Directive). This relates to changes in the circumstances in the refugee’s country of origin.

The legal note sets out the legal obligations relating to cessation under international and EU law, covering statutory provisions and the judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU, with a focus on the cessation provisions themselves. It also considers recent ancillary case law which may have implications for current caseloads.

The legal note then examines eight main legal issues that have been raised by the national state practice of cessation in Europe:

  1. Is the test for cessation of refugee status similar to that for recognition of refugee status? Is it the ‘mirror’ of recognition?
  2. What is the standard of proof to be used for cessation?
  3. What procedural obligations are placed on a national status determination body and/or applicant to demonstrate eligibility for international protection where one of the statuses of international protection has been revoked?
  4. When will return to the country of origin or other acts of re-availment of the protection of the country of origin engage the cessation clauses?
  5. Can non-state actors of protection provide ‘protection’ for the purpose of cessation?
  6. Does the existence of an international protection alternative (IPA) constitute a relevant change in circumstance which can give rise to cessation?
  7. How should the ‘compelling circumstances’ exception to cessation be applied?
  8. Does cessation require assessment of humanitarian considerations and, as part of this, what is the relationship between cessation and the European Convention on Human Rights?

The legal note is available here.

     

NEWS FROM THE ECRE OFFICE


Open Letter: Call for donors to support civil society to prevent a crisis of asylum, reception and inclusion in Europe

More than 100 civil society organisations working on asylum and migration have signed an open letter calling on institutional and private donors to increase their support to civil society in order to prevent a crisis of asylum, reception and inclusion in Europe.

Concerned about the impacts of recent funding cuts by the US and other donors on displaced people all over the world and the organisations that support them, they have made the following recommendations:

To the European Commission:

  • Use the mid-term review of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the European Social Fund+ (ESF+) to ensure that funding channelled via EU member states adequately supports civil society organisations working on asylum and migration
  • Consider how to fund civil society organisations directly (e.g. through resources from the AMIF thematic facility), in order to respond to the emerging needs for legal aid, counselling and other activities, all of which have a high added value for the EU by supporting the implementation of the Pact
  • Review whether, given the changed context, EU member states should be obliged to spend a certain percentage of their national programmes in support of civil society, a good practice established for EU funding for displacement from Ukraine
  • Adapt national programmes under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance to respond to the emerging needs in relation to asylum and migration

To EU member states:

  • Ensure that national programmes under the AMIF and the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI) provide adequate resources for civil society organisations, that civil society organisations are considered eligible under all relevant call for proposals, that activities include legal counselling and representation, and that calls for proposals are issued promptly
  • Convene consultations with affected civil society organisations to understand what the needs are and how they can be addressed in the short-, medium- and long-term

To private funders:

  • Re-assess funding needs for asylum in Europe, increase resources for this purpose and prioritise countries where neither national allocation of EU funds nor institutional funding reaches civil society.

The open letter, including the full list of signatories, is available here.

     

NEWS FROM THE ECRE OFFICE


Policy Note: Reception Conditions: Protecting Women and Girls in EU Asylum Systems

ECRE has published a policy note which examines how the 2024 recast Reception Conditions Directive can support more effective and harmonised implementation of gender-sensitive reception across the EU. It draws on a wide range of sources, including the Asylum Information Database (AIDA), evaluations from the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), and relevant case law, to illustrate the structural and practical barriers refugee women and girls still face upon arrival.

The policy note provides a number of concrete recommendations for the European Commission, EU member states, and the EU Asylum Agency to ensure that reception conditions uphold international and European legal standards, including by:

  • Enforcing individualised, intersectional assessments of special reception needs
  • Guaranteeing safe and adequate reception conditions, especially for women and girls in vulnerable situations
  • Enhancing access to healthcare, education, and employment
  • Implementing gender-sensitive guidelines, training, and monitoring mechanisms.

It also highlights the importance of combining legal reform with consistent, on-the-ground compliance with existing protections.

The policy note is available here.

     

NEWS FROM THE ECRE OFFICE


ECRE Annual General Conference 2025

The ECRE Annual General Conference (AGC) 2025 will take place 09.00-18.00 on Thursday 5 June 2025 in Warsaw.

Participation in the AGC is open to representatives of ECRE member organisations, other organisations (e.g. other NGOs, think tanks, academic institutions, national administrations, EU institutions and other bodies, other international organisations etc.) and individuals. However, the participation of representatives of ECRE member organisations will be prioritised and ECRE reserves the right to refuse participation.

As in previous years, the AGC will consist of a mixture of plenary sessions and smaller workshops. A draft agenda will be available to download from the ECRE website soon.

Lunch and morning and afternoon refreshments will be provided for all participants.

The AGC will be followed by an informal social event in the evening.

There is no limit on the number of people from the same organisation who can participate. However, please note that due to current financial constraints, ECRE will not be able to cover any travel or accommodation costs for participants.

If you would like to participate in the ECRE AGC 2025, please complete this registration form.

For more information, please contact Ben Moore.

     

RECENT REPORTS

 

ECRE


May April  

ECRE Member Organisations

 
April  

Others


May April

Back to top

UPCOMING EVENTS

 

ECRE

 

ECRE Member Organisations

 

Others

Back to top

OPEN JOB VACANCIES


ECRE

ECRE Member Organisations

 

Others

Back to top

ONGOING CAMPAIGNS

 

ECRE Member Organisations

 

Others

Back to top

CALLS FOR PAPERS, PROJECT PROPOSALS, UNIVERSITY COURSES etc.

 

Call for Nominations


Calls for Papers


Call for Project Proposals
Calls for Scholarships

 Back to top
                     
This email was sent to <<<<Email Address>>>>
 

Update subscription preferences ·  Unsubscribe from this list

 
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)
Avenue des Arts / Kunstlaan 7-8 · 1210 · Brussels · Belgium