Stronger and more transparent oversight needed from the European Commission on compliance with EU asylum standards on the Greek islands

Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) and HIAS Greece highlight a lack of clarity and transparency on the functioning of the Task Force Migration Management set up by the European Commission in September 2020, in their contribution to a targeted consultation launched by the European Ombudsman under an inquiry on how the Commission ensures human rights compliance in new EU-funded reception facilities on the Greek islands.

The Task Force is presented by the Commission as an operational coordination mechanism, yet it appears to have a role in monitoring compliance with EU asylum standards. The Task Force “addresses” issues of “bad implementation” in its dialogue with Greece, as stated by the Commission when dismissing four complaints supported by our organisations last year. However, documentation obtained from the Task Force shows that several of the infringements raised in complaints have not been covered in discussions with the Greek authorities.

Concerns also surround the monitoring of implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the EU and Greece in December 2020 as part of a plan for a new Multi-Purpose Reception and Identification Centre (MPRIC) on the island of Lesvos, since many of the targets set therein have not been met two years later. Task Force meetings with authorities under a dedicated Steering Committee have stopped since April 2022, while no records seem to be kept of meetings with civil society organisations.

Our contribution also lays out the multi-faceted impact of MPRIC on the human rights of people seeking protection through an analysis of breaches of:
* the right to asylum on account of arbitrary dismissal of applications based on the “safe third country” concept and of barriers on subsequent asylum claims 

* the right to dignity stemming from extreme material deprivation and legal limbo facing asylum seekers subject to the “safe third country” concept

* the right to liberty through various forms of arbitrary detention, including the use of pre-removal detention without removal prospects and the prohibition on exiting MPRIC during reception and identification procedures

* the right to privacy and data protection due to the roll-out of surveillance systems in camps without adequate safeguards

* the right to legal assistance owed to impermissible authorisation requirements for lawyers’ access to the MPRIC, coupled with unlawful use of truncated border procedures under extremely short timeframes