Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Multiannual strategic policy for European integrated border management’ (COM(2023) 146 final)
Date: 2023-09-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, EU policy, Frontex, border control, external border of the EU, international cooperation, operation of the Institutions, return migration








C_202300868EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/868


8.12.2023






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Multiannual strategic policy for European integrated border management’
         
(COM(2023) 146 final)
(C/2023/868)







Rapporteur:



Cristian PÎRVULESCU





Co-rapporteur:



José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ











Referral


European Commission, letter of 2.5.2023




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


5.9.2023




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


79/0/7




Adopted at plenary


20.9.2023




Plenary session No


581




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


179/4/6




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the Integrated Border Management Strategy of the European Union as a management tool that seeks to improve coordination and Member States’ shared objectives in relation to external borders.












1.2.


The EESC is aware of the importance of having a shared strategy for the better management of external borders, ensuring the internal security of the European Union and the safety of its residents, as well as the protection of fundamental rights and guarantees for the free movement of people within the EU.












1.3.


The EESC welcomes the fact that the EIBM emphasises the need to improve coordination between European agencies and instruments and those of the Member States working on border management issues, particularly with regard to the exchange of information and the creation of a common border culture that guarantees the protection of human rights and fundamental guarantees.












1.4.


The EESC fully supports the EIBM strategic guideline stating that Frontex and the relevant authorities of the Member States should integrate fundamental rights safeguards throughout all their activities. However, the implementation of this strategic guideline, in all its complexity, rests primarily on the existence and work of fundamental rights monitors within Frontex. The EESC urges the Commission and the Agency to revise the Fundamental Rights Strategy so as to include tangible objectives related to the work and impact of the fundamental rights monitors.












1.5.


As the Strategy fails to specify the commitments of national border institutions, the EESC recommends that the Commission use the EIBM framework to require from each Member State a fundamental rights plan in the area of border management, mirroring and complementing that which guides the activity of Frontex.












1.6.


The EESC emphasises the need to set up a genuine Common European Asylum System that is effective, safe and secure, common and mandatory for the 27 Member States, while reaffirming its position that legal, safe and effective channels of access should be provided for immigration for work purposes. Furthermore, the EESC reiterates the need to provide effective and realistic legal and secure migration pathways to the EU to facilitate a balanced migration policy.












1.7.


The EESC regrets that in the EIBM, the practice of pushbacks is not properly acknowledged and tackled. The Committee asks the Commission to devise clear plans in this respect and determine national border institutions to avoid these unacceptable practices.












1.8.


While it is useful to promote an EIBM culture characterised by its compliance with EU and international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, and by the full respect for fundamental rights, the EESC points out that respect for fundamental rights is a legal obligation for all EU and national institutions and should be treated accordingly.












1.9.


The EESC insists that under no circumstances should EU foreign policy or cooperation policy be conditional on the cooperation of countries of origin in return and readmission processes.












1.10.


The current system of returns, in which only five Member States are responsible for 80 % of the returns facilitated by Frontex, shows that it is not just a matter of institutional capacities or coordination. EU countries all have different geographical situations and varied legal frameworks and practices in this respect, and it would be a strategic and political mistake to turn the EU into an actor pushing for extensive returns.












1.11.


The EESC encourages all EU national governments to work toward strengthening EU unity via the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in the Schengen area, helping European citizens move freely within the EU and strengthening border management by aligning the institutions of both countries with its objectives.




2.   General comments









2.1.


According to Frontex’s Strategic Risk Analysis (SRA), there are a number of trends affecting the management of external borders. Issues such as global inequalities, climate change, population growth and possible common pandemics are in addition to more short-term geopolitical challenges. Thus, for example, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has reconfirmed the reality of a hostile geopolitical context on Europe’s eastern borders. All these challenges have a significant impact on the management of migration and returns and the way in which the EU’s external borders should be managed.












2.2.


At the extraordinary meeting of the European Council on 9 February 2023, the importance of ensuring effective control of the external borders of the European Union was reiterated as part of the comprehensive approach to migration. In response to this request, the European Commission has presented the Communication establishing the multiannual strategic policy for European Integrated Border Management (EIBM) as the first multiannual instrument to establish a shared framework and guidance for the effective implementation of integrated European border management for the period 2023-2027.












2.3.


EIBM is based on the Regulation for the establishment of the European Border and Coast Guard and seeks to steer the work of the Member States’ national authorities responsible for border management and Frontex itself. At the operational level, this strategy is the common framework that should guide the work of more than 120 000 Frontex and Member State border guards, with a view to achieving effective and efficient integrated European border management.












2.4.


The ultimate objective of the integrated management of common external borders is to enhance the internal security of the European Union while respecting fundamental rights and the necessary guarantees for the free movement of people within the EU. Specifically, the objectives of EIBM are to facilitate the regular crossing of borders and improve the efficiency of the European return policy; to ensure the effective prevention of unauthorised crossings of the EU’s external borders; to prevent and detect cross-border crime, such as migrant smuggling, human trafficking, terrorism and drug trafficking; to ensure effective cooperation with third countries; and to take care of people in need of international protection.












2.5.


The principles of EIBM are set out in the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation and include shared responsibility between Member States responsible for border management and returns with Frontex, which also involves cooperation and information exchange. EIBM is also based on a four-tier access control model comprising measures in third countries, measures with neighbouring third countries, border control measures at external borders, as well as measures within the Schengen area and returns. Similarly, EIBM requires comprehensive and near real-time situational awareness to provide timely responses, as well as ongoing preparedness to respond to emerging threats with the necessary and appropriate tools. The application of EIBM also requires a high degree of specialisation and professionalism, with the objective of developing a common border guard culture based on training and including ethical values and integrity.












2.6.


The objective of the EIBM’s 5-year work plan is to provide a strategic response to the challenges identified, ensuring that the external borders of the European Union are managed efficiently, by creating synergies between the European Union and national governments.




3.   Specific comments









3.1.


The EESC acknowledges the importance of the European Border Guard and welcomes the Integrated Border Management Strategy of the European Union as a management tool that seeks to improve coordination and Member States’ shared objectives in relation to external borders.












3.2.


The EESC is aware of the importance of having a shared strategy for the better management of external borders, ensuring the internal security of the European Union and their citizens and residents, as well as the protection of fundamental rights and guarantees for the free movement of people within the EU.












3.3.


The EESC welcomes the fact that EIBM emphasises the need to improve coordination between European agencies and instruments and those of the Member States working on border management issues, particularly with regard to the exchange of information and the creation of a common border culture that guarantees the protection of human rights and fundamental guarantees.












3.4.


The EESC considers that working with the Member States institutions and officials is key to the success of the Strategy. Although it has its own functioning issues, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) seems quicker at developing capacities, training and monitoring personnel and improving working procedures. National border institutions, having the bulk of responsibilities and resources, and also organisational cultures less prone to reform and cooperation, must be encouraged to adapt to the challenges of common border management.












3.5.


The EESC fully supports the EIBM strategic guideline stating that Frontex and the relevant authorities of the Member States should integrate fundamental rights safeguards throughout all their activities, including in operational activities, analysis and risk assessments, planning activities, return activities, training and development, as well as in cooperation and engagements with external partners (1).












3.6.


However, the implementation of this strategic guideline, in all its complexity, rests primarily on the existence and work of fundamental rights monitors within Frontex, led by a Fundamental Rights Officer (2). To have a real impact, the fundamental rights monitors must be in sufficient number, well-qualified, autonomous and present in all relevant locations, including border sites. The EESC urges the Commission and the Agency to revise the Fundamental Rights Strategy so as to include tangible objectives related to the work and impact of the fundamental rights monitors.












3.7.


In this regard, and with serious negative consequences, the Strategy fails to specify the commitments of national border institutions. At this level, the fundamental rights safeguards, procedures, responsibilities and capacities are sparingly indicated. The EESC recommends that the Commission use the EIBM framework to require from each Member State a fundamental rights plan in the area of border management, mirroring and complementing that which guides the activity of Frontex.












3.8.


The EESC regrets that EIBM reinforces the narrative that turns immigration and asylum into potential risks for the European Union. Considering irregular immigration as a threat on the same level as human trafficking, arms trafficking or terrorism is totally unacceptable and distorts and contaminates the responses to be given to persons seeking irregular access to EU territory, who may be in need of international protection.












3.9.


The EESC insists on the need to set up a genuine Common European Asylum System that is effective, safe and secure, common and mandatory for the 27 Member States, while reaffirming its position that legal, safe and effective channels of access should be provided for immigration for work purposes. As long as we continue to insist on a false idea of the so called ‘Fortress Europe’, migratory flows will seek forms of access which, unfortunately, in many cases will not be legal.












3.10.


The EESC hopes that in the interinstitutional negotiations between the Council of the EU, Council presidencies and the European Parliament on the implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, more procedural safeguards will be granted to persons participating in the border procedure. The recent position adopted by the Council of the EU proposed steps in the right direction, e.g. asylum seekers being provided with the services of a interpreter or having the right to legal assistance and representation (3). Yet, the border procedure runs significant fundamental rights protection risks due to the uncertainties, the imperative of shortening the duration of procedures and effective access to protection and support.












3.11.


The EESC regrets that in EIBM, the practice of pushbacks is not properly acknowledged and tackled. Strategies and regulations lose any value as long as people get hurt and sometimes die because some border officials in some cases do not perform their duties appropriately. The Committee asks the Commission to devise clear plans in this respect and require national border institutions to avoid these unacceptable practices.












3.12.


The work of national border guards and other law enforcement personnel should be guided by clear rules and procedures when encountering persons, especially those who are in a situation of immediate risk. The rules and procedures must be codified and the conduct of personnel should be transparently monitored by national institutions, EU bodies, and CSOs.












3.13.


The EESC finds problematic that the Commission in its Communication frames fundamental rights protection by Frontex and the Member States as part of an ‘EIBM culture characterised by its compliance with EU and international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, by the full respect for fundamental rights’. Such a culture should be encouraged but respect for fundamental rights is a legal obligation for all EU and national institutions and should be treated accordingly.












3.14.


The EESC is aware of the difficulties of effective return in most Member States and of the Commission’s desire to move towards a common and effective European return system. In any case, the fundamental rights of the persons to be returned must always be guaranteed, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, stating that no one should be returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his/her life or freedom would be threatened on account of his/her ethnicity, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion..












3.15.


Nevertheless, the EESC wishes to point out that most returns do not work properly because of the lack of involvement and participation of the countries of origin, and the risk of basing EU migration policy on the will of (and incentives demanded by) third countries. The EESC insists that under no circumstances should EU foreign policy or cooperation policy be conditional on the cooperation of countries of origin in return and readmission processes: on the contrary, EU policy must require respect for human rights and the rule of law as the basis for any cooperation with third countries.












3.16.


The current system of returns, in which only five Member States are responsible for 80 % of the returns facilitated by Frontex, shows that it is not just a matter of institutional capacities or coordination. EU countries all have different geographical situations and varied legal frameworks and practices in this respect, and it would be a strategic and political mistake to turn the EU into an actor pushing for extensive returns.












3.17.


The EESC highlights that the use of terms such as ‘instrumentalisation’ could lead to criminalisation of migratory flows, especially those of people in need of international protection. The EESC also considers that the very concept of ‘instrumentalisation of immigration’ has also been used as a political excuse to cover up obstructionist positions on respect for human rights in serious humanitarian situations.












3.18.


Even when there are cases of state-sponsored instrumentalisation of migrants at the EU external border, a practice that the Committee fully condemns, the response should be based on the highest standards of EU and international law, and ensure the full and immediate recognition of the rights of persons (4).












3.19.


The EESC welcomes the recognition of the tense situation regarding the protection of human rights and compliance with international obligations in the world, and the EU’s commitment to safeguarding them. It points out that the existing international framework for refugees must be respected and that the protection of the right to asylum is key and requires special protection at the EU’s external borders.












3.20.


The EESC emphasises the idea that support to third countries, especially that delivered through the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation instrument — Global Europe (NDICI-GE) and the Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance (IPA III), should not take away resources from key development objectives and move them toward migration control.












3.21.


The EESC considers that there is a significant imbalance in the development of the components of the EIBM, since detailed attention is given to issues relating to border control or returns, while insufficient detail is given to issues such as the protection of fundamental rights or training for those working on related issues.












3.22.


The EESC regrets that more tools are not being developed for the evaluation and monitoring of the actions of those involved in external border protection tasks, given the cases of excesses and violations of rights that have been seen in recent times.












3.23.


The EESC considers it essential to make progress on coordination and information exchange between the institutions and agencies of the European Union and the Member States working on border control issues and understands the value of new technologies in this context. It stresses the need to always ensure the protection and exchange of data (5) (VIS system), especially for vulnerable people (6).












3.24.


The EESC welcomes the Commission’s commitment to evaluate the development of EIBM in four years but considers that the annexed proposal does not present specific actions beyond the strategic lines and political priorities.












3.25.


The EESC encourages all EU national governments to work toward strengthening EU unity via the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in the Schengen area, helping European citizens move freely within the EU and strengthening border management by aligning the institutions of both countries with its objectives.






Brussels, 20 September 2023.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
            





(1)  COM(2023) 146 final Annex, Component 13 Fundamental Rights pp. 24-25.

(2)  The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Fundamental Rights Strategy, February 2021.

(3)  Council of the EU, Migration policy: Council reaches agreement on key asylum and migration laws, Press release, 8 June 2023.

(4)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Responding to state-sponsored instrumentalisation of migrants at the EU external border’ (JOIN(2021) 32 final) (OJ C 365, 23.9.2022, p. 60).

(5)  Large-Scale IT systems Such as Eurodac; the Visa Information System; the Schengen Information System; the Customs Information System, etc.

(6)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information (API) for enhancing and facilitating external border controls, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/817 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1726, and repealing Council Directive 2004/82/EC (COM(2022) 729 final) and on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collection and transfer of advance passenger information for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/818 (COM(2022) 731 final) (OJ C 228, 29.6.2023, p. 97).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/868/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)