Aller à la navigation Aller au contenu

Press Review October 2025

 Egypt

The European Union is preparing to grant Egypt €75 million in new aid as part of a €7.4 billion plan for 2024–2027. Presented as support for socio-economic development and the prevention of departures to Europe, this funding once again illustrates the European strategy of externalising migration control.

By transferring responsibility for receiving migrants to countries in the Global South, the European Union is transforming pushbacks into pullbacks. Rather than directly expelling or turning away migrants at its borders, the European Union is delegating these practices to third countries, thereby keeping its hands clean. By cooperating with Egypt to hinder mobility, the European Union is sacrificing fundamental rights and, in doing so, assuming responsibility. This decision has been taken despite the serious violations committed under Abdel Fattah al-Sissi’s regime, including arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, torture and systematic repression of civil society. [1]

This policy, justified by the fiction of “local development to deter departures”, ignores the structural causes of forced migration – poverty, corruption, repression – and reinforces the very mechanisms that produce it. Behind the rhetoric of a “win–win” partnership lies a Europe that is outsourcing its borders and sacrificing human rights in favour of security cooperation.

 Libya

The Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has ordered Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) to leave the country before 9 November, without providing any justification. In March 2025, the organisation had already been forced to suspend its activities following the closure of its premises, with Tripoli accusing it of carrying out “hostile actions aimed at changing the demographic composition of the country”. This decision marks the end of the presence of the last NGO providing medical assistance to people on the move in western Libya. Since 2023, MSF has provided nearly 20,000 medical and psychological consultations there, so its withdrawal leaves thousands of people without access to healthcare.

The Libyan decision to force MSF to leave the country is part of a strategy to eliminate witnesses to the violence inflicted on migrants, who are regularly subjected to arrests, intimidation, delegitimisation campaigns and violence. [2] This expulsion also highlights the responsibility of the European Union, which since 2017 has continued to contribute to the funding and training of the Libyan “coast guard”, despite its responsibility for shootings, arbitrary arrests and acts of torture against people on the move. [3]

By banning humanitarian actors from the territory, the Libyan authorities are guaranteeing impunity for militias and security forces, rendering violations of migrants’ rights invisible and normalising violence as a tool for managing migration.

 Mauritania

Since the beginning of 2025, nearly 2,000 migrants have been returned to their countries from Mauritania as part of the “voluntary return” programme coordinated by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). This is twice the number recorded in 2024. These returns are taking place in a context marked by repeated violations of rights and increasing pressure on people on the move in Mauritania: arbitrary arrests and detentions, incessant checks, raids on homes, mass expulsions and lack of access to fundamental rights and healthcare. [4] Under these conditions, many have no choice but to leave. [5]

This shift towards security and repression coincides with the signing of a “migration partnership” between the EU and Mauritania in 2024, aimed at outsourcing migration management and thus preventing departures to Europe, at the cost of a massive deterioration in the rights of people on the move. Testimonies describe a climate of administrative and police terror, where minors, often unaccompanied or isolated, account for nearly half of those returned. The EU welcomes the decline in arrivals in the Canary Islands (–59%), which is in fact based on a logic of refoulement, invisibilisation and delegation of repression. Mauritania is thus becoming a central link in a chain of deterrence financed by Europe, where “voluntary returns” are in reality expulsions.

 Tunisia

The activities of the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights (FTDES), a member of the Migreurop network, have been arbitrarily suspended for one month by decision of the Tunisian Ministry of the Interior. This measure is part of a broader offensive by the government of President Kaïs Saïed against human rights associations [6] and civil society organisations in general. The FTDES also reports that it has been subject to continuous financial and tax audits since April 2025.

By criminalising civil society actors, the Tunisian authorities are hindering solidarity and undermining the protection of the rights of people on the move by increasing the opacity of violence against them, particularly practices of refoulement and detention, in a country that has become a key player in European migration policies. [7] Ultimately, by sanctioning the FTDES, the Tunisian authorities are sending a clear message: defending human rights is itself becoming an act of dissent. [8]

 Germany

Chancellor Merz’s government is negotiating directly with the Taliban to resume deportations to Afghanistan. Berlin is seeking to conclude a bilateral agreement allowing for the organisation of regular “repatriation” flights. Officially, these deportations would initially target individuals convicted of crimes or offences [9], but the German government has not ruled out extending these measures to all Afghan nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected. ‘Technical’ discussions took place in Kabul, and Taliban representatives were allowed to intervene in Afghan consulates in Germany, a first in the European Union.

By choosing to negotiate with the Taliban to allow deportations, Germany is locking itself into a major contradiction: it is negotiating with a regime that it does not officially recognise, thereby granting it a form of legitimacy. However, Afghanistan cannot be considered a “safe country of origin”; the country remains highly unstable and continues to be marked by massive human rights violations, making any deportation contrary to the principle of non-refoulement and, by extension, to Germany’s international commitments. The UN continues to warn of “cases of torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention” attributed to the Taliban authorities against Afghan nationals returning to the country. [10] This shift illustrates a profound break with the “welcome policy” promoted by Angela Merkel in 2015 and paves the way for a Europe of deportation, ready to deal with the tormentors of those it refuses to welcome.

 Italy

On 21 October 2025, the trial of six members of the NGO Mediterranea Saving Humans (MSH) began in Sicily. They are accused of “aiding illegal immigration” for rescuing 27 migrants abandoned at sea.

The humanitarian workers are being prosecuted for receiving €125,000 from shipping giant Maersk after transferring 27 people on the move who had been stranded for over a month on the cargo ship Maersk Etienne in September 2020. The ship, which had carried out the rescue at Malta’s request, was refused entry to any European port. For MSH, this trial is nothing more than an attempt to criminalise sea rescue, at a time when European states are shirking their international obligations to provide assistance and state naval patrols have disappeared from the Mediterranean.

This trial is part of a consistent trend by the Italian authorities to criminalise civilian search and rescue actors in order to deter any civilian operations at sea. Rescue NGOs are subject to systematic repression [11]: seizure of vessels, restrictions on access to distress areas, administrative sanctions, criminal prosecutions and disproportionate financial penalties. This strategy is aimed less at saving lives than at deterring rescue, effectively transforming the Mediterranean into an exceptional space where maritime law is violated with impunity. However, in July 2025 the Italian Constitutional Court ruled [12] that any decision based on punitive and discriminatory standards that circumvent international maritime law should be considered illegal and illegitimate.

The Italian authorities prefer to prosecute those who save lives rather than those who let them die. This moral reversal reveals the excesses of a Europe that externalises its borders, criminalises mobility and hinders solidarity.

 France

On 10 October 2025, sixteen organisations [13] filed an appeal with the Council of State to request the annulment of the decree implementing the migration agreement signed between France and the United Kingdom in July 2025.

They argue, firstly, that it violates Article 53 of the Constitution, which requires parliamentary ratification of international agreements affecting fundamental freedoms. However, the French Parliament was never consulted. Secondly, it infringes individual freedom (protected by Article 66 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the ECHR) by authorising the detention and forced transfer of migrants for several days. The associations also cite a violation of the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement, as the agreement does not provide for any individual examination of situations or effective recourse to challenge transfer decisions.

Beyond its procedural illegality, this agreement illustrates a repressive and dehumanising logic that reduces migrants to diplomatic bargaining chips. People on the move, already trapped between Calais and Dover, become hostages in a bilateral game where repression is used to demonstrate political firmness which, far from stemming the crossings, institutionalises violence at the borders and enshrines the renunciation of international protection obligations.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child accuses France of serious and systematic violations of its international obligations towards unaccompanied minors. In its report [14], it refers to minors living in degrading conditions, deprived of access to healthcare, education and any appropriate protection. The Committee also condemns the treatment of those placed in airport waiting areas, which are akin to detention centres, and considers their deprivation of liberty to be disproportionate and arbitrary. [15]

The report questions a system that contravenes the fundamental principle of presumption of minority, based on suspicion rather than protection. Without identity documents, young people on the move are forced to undergo controversial bone tests or arbitrary interviews conducted by the départements. These procedures, which are often biased [16], result in children having their minority status denied.

Behind the supposed rigour of minority checks lies a policy of exclusion that forces minors to live on the streets, exposing them to a high risk of violations of their rights.

 Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned Greece for its responsibility in the deaths of 16 people on the move during a shipwreck on 16 March 2018 off the coast of Agathonisi in the Aegean Sea. In its ruling of 14 October 2025 [17], the ECHR noted that the Greek coastguard, alerted in the early hours of the tragedy, failed to take the necessary measures to rescue those in distress: it took more than 24 hours for a search operation to be launched. The Court ruled that Greece had violated Article 2 of the Convention (right to life) by failing to provide prompt and effective assistance and by conducting a flawed criminal investigation, which was closed without further action despite overwhelming evidence.

Paradoxically, this decision reveals the impunity of Member States in the face of violence committed against people on the move. Practices of non-assistance at sea, as well as pushbacks, have become pillars of European migration governance and reflect a “securitisation” of maritime control, where deterrence and the criminalisation of mobility take precedence over the protection of the lives of migrants.

 United Kingdom

After the failure of the Rwandan project, which was deemed illegal in 2023 [18], London is now exploring the Balkans as a way to outsource its border management. Negotiations are focusing on the creation of a centre in Kosovo to “welcome” asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected in the United Kingdom. The Kosovar Prime Minister has confirmed these discussions, citing a “duty of friendship” towards London and expressing his desire to “contribute to European security” in exchange for British support. The United Kingdom, for its part, presents this project as a strategic partnership and a tool for regional stabilisation. Keir Starmer praised this “mutually beneficial” cooperation in Belfast [19], promising £10 million to combat people smugglers and deploy surveillance technology in the region.

The draft agreement is in fact based on a political barter: the United Kingdom delegates the reception of migrants deemed undesirable in the UK in exchange for military and diplomatic support, to give the illusion of effective migration control.

This diplomacy of return illustrates the hardening of a Europe obsessed with deterrence. Following agreements with Tunisia, Libya and Albania, the UK is now seeking to impose the “return hubs” model in the Balkans, a transit zone that has become a buffer zone. This strategy, which purports to solve “migration crises” by shifting them elsewhere, merely pushes back the boundaries of the law and destabilises countries in the Global South.

Under the guise of efficiency, it normalises the idea that a person on the move can be detained in a country they never wanted to go to and/or have never set foot in, in the name of a migration policy that has become a tool for geopolitical negotiation.

 Entry-Exit System

The new European Entry/Exit System (EES) was launched on 12 October. It is an automated digital system designed to record the entries and exits of all third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Schengen area. This system, provided for in a 2017 Regulation [20], is based on the collection and processing of biometric data – fingerprints, facial recognition and iris scans – coupled with information contained in passports.

The information collected is stored for three years by eu-LISA, the European agency responsible for large-scale IT systems, and can be interconnected with other databases such as Eurodac or ETIAS, thus creating a traceability system that is akin to surveillance. [21]

In reality, this tool for “modernising” border management organises and normalises mass data collection. It aims to further restrict and control mobility within the Schengen area, particularly secondary movements. The system will also facilitate the identification and expulsion of people on the move, particularly those in the Dublin procedure. The EES also contributes to the criminalisation of migrants, turning them into suspects simply because they have crossed a border. Under the pretext of “security”, the European Union is thus continuing the merger, initiated by the Pact, of migration policy and anti-terrorism policy.