Commissioner-designate for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, has steered clear of the current politically charged debates on the EU’s future migration policy, including ‘return hubs’ and transparency on migration deals with third countries.
The Austrian nominee, seen by many in Brussels as an surprise pick due to his lack of experience in migration and home affairs, has finally clarified his key priorities if confirmed as commissioner in written answers to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE).
While he stayed true to the contents of the letter European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent to member states last week on the future of EU migration policy, and affirmed his full commitment to implementing the Migration pact, he skirted the most burning issue of the moment, avoiding any mention of the much-debated ‘return hubs’ that have been a hot topic for months.
What such hubs will look like in practice, and their legal underpinnings, have never been clearly defined, although they are likely to be part of the Commission’s flagship plans to outsource some asylum work to non-EU countries.
As it stands, return hubs could either entail the externalisation of asylum claim processes to third-countries, of the likes of the recently-actioned Italy-Albania deal, or act as detention centres in transit countries for irregular migrants who have not been granted asylum in the EU.
Return hubs are a rebranded version of the concept of regional disembarkation platforms, proposed by the Commission in 2018, which was ultimately shelved due to legal and human rights concerns.
“Return hubs are part of a heated political discussion he may want to stay clear off, rather than add to his to-do list,” Helena Hahn, a migration policy officer at the European Policy Centre think tank told Euractiv.
It may be too risky for Brunner to raise this very point in his answers, given how political the conversation is becoming, with member states divided on how to take this forward, Hahn added.
Brunner also made no mention of the much-discussed Italy-Albania migration deal, which faced legal challenges last week when a Rome court ruled against the detention of migrants in Albania.
The nominee further failed to clarify the level of transparency his office would give when communicating about migration deals with non-EU countries to the European Parliament – the negotiations for which have so far been opaque and without effective parliamentary scrutiny.
“I will seek to increase the level of transparency and information visibility that you receive, and to propose that my services debrief you on the external missions carried out, their outcomes and next steps,” he wrote.
There is now sufficient evidence to confirm that the deals, including with Turkey, Tunisia and Libya, have led to human rights abuses, and failed to protect migrants’ fundamental rights against refoulement.
Brunner did not use the term ‘human rights’ once in his answers.
“The jury is still out on how political he will be willing to be in his new role, especially as von der Leyen has taken a leading role [on migration],” Hahn told Euractiv.
Why legal experts are worried about an EU debate on 'return hubs'
Join host Giada Santana and politics reporter Nicoletta Ionta as they take a closer look at why the current debate on return hubs is worrying law experts.
‘Urgent’ Return Directive
Despite the lack of clarity on some of the more politically charged issues, Brunner also – unsurprisingly – confirmed that he would “work urgently on a new common approach on returns.”
Returning irregular migrants that have not been granted asylum in the EU to countries of origin or transit is hailed by member states almost unanimously as a matter needing urgent addressing.
A new legislative proposal is expected to see the light of day in early 2025 to review the existing 2008 text, which is considered unfit for today’s challenges, Brunner announced.
The new text will look “to speed up and simplify returns, defining clear obligations of cooperation for the returnee, effectively streamlining the process, digitalising case management and making provision for mutual recognition of each other’s return decisions,” Brunner’s answers read.
Negotiations on a legislative review back in 2018 had not materialised.
“We need to establish a common European return system, which requires a renewed, modern legal framework tailored to today’s challenges,” a Commission official told Euractiv under the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues.
National return procedures still contain “many loopholes” and “diverge too much,” they added – and a streamlining of procedures at the EU level is warranted.
Macron’s European Parliament troops take aim at own government on migration
“Retailleau’s attitude and words suggest that he is willing to ignore [the Migration Pact]”.
Frontex’s expanding scope
Brunner also made clear he would back the Commission’s push to triple Frontex’s Standing Corps to 30,000.
He stands ready to expand the role of Frontex, the EU’s border management organisation, to better assist member states with returns, and get more heavily involved in operations in third countries.
This extension of responsibilities would require legislative changes, “through an amendment of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation,” Brunner noted.
Frontex would also be given new powers to adopt “a stronger and more agile response to hybrid threats at EU borders.”
This echoes Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s urging call to EU partners to recognise his country’s migration pressures from Russia and Belarus – as he announced he would suspend access to asylum procedures for migrants entering Poland through the Belarussian border.
“The review of the Frontex regulation was always lingering,” an EU human rights agency official told Euractiv. “If you submit a new return instrument, you have to boost Frontex’s powers.”
As the legal basis for Frontex only dates back to 2019, there is still “room for change,” the official added.
[Edited by Daniel Eck]
Source: euractiv.com
