MIGREUROP

Italy: Death of a Moroccan citizen during a law enforcement intervention

Camille — 2026-07-24T14:58:18Z

The Moroccan Association for Human Rights condemns the killing of a Moroccan citizen in Italy by law enforcement officers, and calls for a thorough and rigorous investigation and for those responsible for this serious crime to be held accountable.

The Moroccan Association for Human Rights (AMDH) received with deep indignation and dismay the news of the tragic death of Moroccan citizen Abdelrahim Fakir, 42, in the city of Bologna, following a violent intervention by law enforcement officers that caused his asphyxiation during the arrest, as shown in circulated videos and reported by the media.

This extremely serious crime, committed against an unarmed citizen, constitutes a flagrant violation of the right to life and a grave breach of the most fundamental human right, guaranteed under international law, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Association's Central Bureau offers its most sincere condolences to the victim's family, expresses its full solidarity and closeness at this painful time, and declares the following:

It condemns in the strongest terms this odious crime committed against a citizen who had lived in Italy for more than 37 years, and expresses its deep indignation at the violence of the law enforcement intervention in the Pilastro district, despite the victim's calls for help;
It calls on the Italian judicial authorities to deepen the investigation already opened into this case, so that all responsibilities are established and all those involved are prosecuted, including the police officers and emergency responders present on the scene who failed to act to save the victim;
It calls on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, African Cooperation, and Moroccans Living Abroad of the Kingdom of Morocco to intervene urgently through diplomatic channels, in order to assist the victim's family, guarantee her justice, and prevent those responsible for this tragedy from going unpunished;
It calls on human rights organizations operating in Italy to follow the judicial case until the full truth is established and justice is served;
It expresses deep concern at the growing recourse to discriminatory practices by law enforcement, and condemns the rise in police violence against migrants, in Italy and in migration destination countries in general — a phenomenon fueled by the spread of racist propaganda and by tolerance shown toward officers responsible for such abuses.

Central Bureau
Rabat, July 21, 2026

إيطاليا: منظمة AMDH تدين وفاة مواطن مغربي خلال تدخل لقوات الأمن

Camille — 2026-07-24T14:51:34Z

الجمعية المغربية لحقوق الإنسان تطالب السلطات المغربية بالتحرك العاجل لانقاذ حياة المعتقل السياسي الصحراوي نعمة اسفاري قبل فوات الاوان

تتابع الجمعية المغربية لحقوق الإنسان بكثير من القلق والانشغال، الوضعية الخطيرة التي يوجد فيها المعتقل السياسي الصحراوي، نعمة اسفاري، الموجود بالسجن المركزي بالقنيطرة، و الذي يخوض اضرابا لامحدودا عن الطعام منذ 08 يونيو 2026، من أجل حمل الدولة المغربية على الوفاء بالتزاماتها الدولية، المتمثلة في وضع القرارات، الصادرة عن آليات الأمم المتحدة، موضع التنفيذ، وأساسا منها قرار لجنة مناهضة التعذيب، المتعلقة بالقضية رقم (CAT/C/69/D/606/2014)، وكذلك راي فريق العمل حول الاعتقال التعسفي، (رقم WGAD/2023/23) المطالب بالإفراج عنه، وتعويضه وجبر جميع الأضرار التي لحقته.

وتفيد شكاية عائلته، أنه بعد اربعين يوما من الإضراب، فقد حوالي عشر كيلو من وزنه، بل إن العائلة جد قلقة بخصوص انقطاع كل المعلومات عن حالته الصحية، ومكان وجوده حاليا، وتخشى أن يكون قد أصابه مكروه.

أن المكتب المركزي للجمعية المغربية لحقوق الإنسان أمام هذه الوضعية الخطيرة، التي يوجد فيها المعتقل السياسي الصحراوي نعمة اسفاري، والتي يتهدد فيها حقه في الحياة، وتتهدد سلامته البدنية وأمانه الشخصي، يطالب المسؤولين بالتحرك العاجل من أجل:

1. تنوير عائلته والرأي العام، الوطني والدولي، حول وضعيته ومكان وجوده، وتمكين اسرته من زيارته والاطمئنان عليه.
2. فتح حوار جاد ومسؤول معه، من أجل النظر في مطالبه العادلة والمشروعة.
3. العمل على احترام الدولة المغربية لالتزاماتها الدولية، والاسراع بالاستجابة لمطالب لجنة مناهضة التعذيب، وفريق العمل حول الاعتقال التعسفي المتمثلة في التعجيل بإطلاق سراحه، وجبر الأضرار المادية والمعنوية التي لحقته بسبب الاعتقال التعسفي الذي كان عرضة له.

*المكتب المركزي**
*الرباط في: 20 يونيو 2026**

Italie : mort d'un citoyen marocain lors d'une intervention des forces de l'ordre

Camille — 2026-07-24T14:51:32Z

L'Association Marocaine des Droits Humains condamne l'homicide du citoyen marocain en Italie par les forces de l'ordre, demande l'ouverture d'une enquête approfondie et rigoureuse ainsi que l'établissement des responsabilités des personnes impliquées dans ce grave crime.

L'Association Marocaine des Droits Humains (AMDH) a accueilli avec une profonde indignation et une vive consternation la nouvelle de la mort tragique du citoyen marocain Abdelrahim Fakir, âgé de 42 ans, survenue dans la ville de Bologne, à la suite d'une intervention violente des forces de l'ordre qui a provoqué son asphyxie durant l'opération d'interpellation, comme le montrent les vidéos diffusées et comme l'ont rapporté les médias.

Ce crime extrêmement grave, commis à l'encontre d'un citoyen désarmé, constitue une violation flagrante du droit à la vie et une atteinte grave au plus fondamental des droits humains, garanti par le droit international, notamment par la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques.

Le Bureau Central de l'Association présente ses condoléances les plus sincères à la famille de la victime, lui exprime sa pleine solidarité et sa proximité en ce moment douloureux, et déclare ce qui suit :

Condamne avec la plus grande fermeté ce crime odieux commis à l'encontre d'un citoyen ayant vécu en Italie depuis plus de 37 ans, et exprime sa profonde indignation face à la violence de l'intervention des forces de l'ordre dans le quartier Pilastro, malgré les appels au secours de la victime ;
Invite les autorités judiciaires italiennes à approfondir l'enquête déjà ouverte sur cette affaire, afin que toutes les responsabilités soient établies et que soient poursuivis tous les acteurs impliqués, y compris les agents de police et le personnel de secours présents sur place qui ne sont pas intervenus pour sauver la victime ;
Demande au Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, de la Coopération Africaine et des Marocains Résidant à l'Étranger du Royaume du Maroc d'intervenir de toute urgence par les voies diplomatiques, afin d'assister la famille de la victime, de lui garantir justice et d'empêcher que les responsables de cette tragédie ne restent impunis ;
Invite les organisations de défense des droits humains opérant en Italie à suivre le dossier judiciaire jusqu'à l'établissement complet de la vérité et de la justice ;
Exprime une profonde préoccupation face au recours croissant à des pratiques discriminatoires de la part des forces de l'ordre, et condamne l'augmentation de la violence policière à l'encontre des migrants, en Italie et dans les pays de migration en général, phénomène alimenté par la diffusion croissante de la propagande raciste et par la tolérance envers les agents responsables de tels abus.

Bureau Central
Rabat, le 21 juillet 2026

Italia : morte di un cittadino marocchino durante un intervento delle forze dell'ordine

Camille — 2026-07-24T14:51:30Z

L'Associazione Marocchina per i Diritti Umani condanna l'uccisione del cittadino marocchino in Italia da parte delle forze dell'ordine, chiede l'apertura di un'indagine approfondita e rigorosa e l'accertamento delle responsabilità delle persone coinvolte in questo grave crimine.

L'Associazione Marocchina per i Diritti Umani (AMDH) ha accolto con profonda indignazione e sconcerto la notizia della tragica morte del cittadino marocchino Abdelrahim Fakir, di 42 anni, avvenuta nella città di Bologna, in seguito a un violento intervento delle forze dell'ordine che ne ha provocato il soffocamento durante le operazioni di fermo, come mostrano i video diffusi e quanto riportato dai mezzi di informazione.

Questo gravissimo crimine, perpetrato ai danni di un cittadino disarmato, costituisce una flagrante violazione del diritto alla vita e una grave lesione del più fondamentale dei diritti umani, garantito dal diritto internazionale, in particolare dalla Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Umani e dal Patto Internazionale sui Diritti Civili e Politici.

L'Ufficio Centrale dell'Associazione, esprime le più sentite condoglianze alla famiglia della vittima e le manifesta la propria piena solidarietà e vicinanza in questo doloroso momento e dichiara quanto segue:

Condanna con la massima fermezza questo atroce crimine commesso nei confronti di un cittadino che ha vissuto in Italia per oltre 37 anni, ed esprime la propria profonda indignazione per la violenza dell'intervento delle forze dell'ordine nel quartiere Pilastro, nonostante le grida di aiuto della vittima;
Invita le autorità giudiziarie italiane ad approfondire l'indagine già aperta sul caso, affinché siano accertate tutte le responsabilità e siano perseguiti tutti i soggetti coinvolti, compresi gli agenti di polizia e il personale di primo soccorso presente sul posto che non è intervenuto per salvare la vittima;
Chiede al Ministero degli Affari Esteri, della Cooperazione Africana e dei Marocchini Residenti all'Estero del Regno del Marocco di intervenire con urgenza attraverso i canali diplomatici, al fine di assistere la famiglia della vittima, garantirle giustizia e impedire che i responsabili di questa tragedia rimangano impuniti;
Invita le organizzazioni per i diritti umani operanti in Italia a seguire il caso giudiziario fino al pieno accertamento della verità e della giustizia;
Esprime profonda preoccupazione per il crescente ricorso a pratiche discriminatorie da parte delle forze dell'ordine e condanna l'aumento della violenza di polizia nei confronti dei migranti, in Italia e nei Paesi di migrazione in generale, fenomeno alimentato dalla crescente diffusione della propaganda razzista e dalla tolleranza nei confronti degli agenti responsabili di tali abusi.

Ufficio Centrale
Rabat, 21 luglio 2026

Press Review May/June 2026

Camille — 2026-07-10T05:53:09Z

Sommaire

Egypt/EU

EuroNews, “EU pays Egypt billions to manage migration — Cairo says it is not enough”, 21 May 2026*

Faced with the reception crisis currently affecting Egypt, Cairo is pressing the EU to increase its funding for ‘migration management'. The regime considers the €200 million allocation currently available to the country for the period 2024–2027 to be ‘insufficient'.

As a key partner of the EU for almost 30 years in the externalisation of borders – a cornerstone of European migration policy – Egypt wields considerable negotiating leverage. It would therefore come as no surprise if European funding were indeed increased, at a historic juncture when restrictions onmobility have become an absolute priority for the EU. This is despite systematic violations of migrants' rights in the country: migrants in Egypt are arbitrarily detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, and forced returns continue to rise [1] . In March 2026, independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council also warned of an intensification of deportations and violations of fundamental rights targeting migrants on Egyptian territory, in particular Sudanese and Syrian nationals [2] .

Libya

France24, “‘The Angel of Death': former Libyan prison director to appear before the ICC”, 19 May 2026

From 19 to 21 May, Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, a Libyan member of the Special Deterrence Forces militia and a senior official at Mitiga Prison in Tripoli, where he is alleged to have directly committed, ordered and facilitated multiple crimes between 2014 and 2020 (war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, rape, murder and other acts of persecution). His victims are alleged to have been targeted on the basis of their gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and migration status. El Hishri is the first suspect to appear before the ICC for atrocities committed in Libya against migrantd persons, as part of the investigation conducted by the Court since 2011 under a UN mandate [3] .

After decades of impunity, the opening of these hearings represents a significant step forward for the victims of the Libyan detention system, which has been fuelled and supported by Europe through its border externalisation policies. Cooperation between the EU and its Member States (notably Italy) with Libya is based on three pillars: technical support and assistance provided to the ‘Libyan Department for Combating Illegal Immigration' (DCIM) – which manages the camps and prisons where migrants suffer serious human rights violations; training and equipping the Libyan coastguard to intercept people at sea and push them back to Libya; and the conclusion of agreements with local Libyan authorities and armed groups to strengthen border controls in the south of the country [4] . By continuing and strengthening its relations with Libya on migration matters, the EU is making itself complicit in the crimes currently under investigation by the ICC, as well as in the impunity that many of their perpetrators continue to enjoy [5] . The case of Najim Isama Almasri clearly illustrates this long-standing complicity. A former head of the Libyan judicial police and an accomplice of El Hishri in the running of Mitiga, he too is the subject of an international arrest warrant issued by the ICC. When he was on Italian territory in early 2025, Rome sent him back to Libya on a state flight, without handing him over to the Court [6] [7] .

InfoMigrants, “‘I'm scared, I don't leave my house anymore': in Libya, Black people are going into hiding, terrified by the ‘hunt for migrants' raging across the country', 5 June 2026

Since early June, Africans of sub-Saharan origin in Libya have been the target of a crackdown on migrants carried out by hostile individuals, the police and local militias. Many are hiding and no longer dare to leave their homes for fear of being attacked. This wave of violence follows anti-immigration protests outside the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Tripoli, sparked by false information circulated on social media about the existence of a fictitious refugee resettlement programme in Libya. The demonstrators were demanding that the UNHCR leave Libya and that refugee support services cease their activities. The UNHCR expressed concern over the demonstrators' hate speech and stated that it was working in cooperation with the Libyan authorities to find solutions for those who have fled conflict.

However, as part of this escalation of violence, these same authorities have carried out mass round-ups in neighbourhoods where migrants live. It should also be noted that round-ups and arbitrary arrests of migrants by the Libyan authorities have long been documented in Libya. Those affected are detained in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture. Incidents of physical, psychological and sexual violence, as well as the abandonment of people in the desert, have also been extensively documented [8] . The UNHCR, whose mandate is to protect refugees in Libya, appears in reality to be serving as a ‘humanitarian fig leaf' to enable European states to continue their cooperation with a failed state where rights are systematically flouted [9] .

Morocco

InfoMigrants, “‘They treat you like cattle': migrants arrested in Morocco on their way to Melilla recount their ordeal', 8 May 2026

In late April, seven Mauritanian nationals attempted to cross the only land border between Morocco and the Spanish-controlled enclave of Melilla. They were arrested by the police and subjected to degrading treatment (including beatings and the theft of their personal belongings), before being pushed back to the Moroccan-Algerian border.

This kind of violence is a daily reality for people attempting to reach the European enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, located on the African continent. The border between Moroccan territory and these enclaves is heavily militarised: over the years, high barriers have been erected and a dense network of radar, thermal and infrared cameras has been deployed along the entire border, with the aim of preventing anyone from reaching the European territory. Forced returns are systematic and are often accompanied by physical violence and theft, perpetrated by both Moroccan and Spanish forces, whose collaboration on migration issues dates back to 1992 (agreement on the movement of persons, transit and the readmission of foreigners who have entered illegally). This cooperation has since been consolidated through a series of externalisation agreements (between Spain and Morocco, but also between the EU and Morocco), which have turned this country into a veritable ‘blockade zone' for migration. The systematic human rights violations in Ceuta and Melilla are emblematic of the process of building a closed-off Europe, and continue with complete impunity [10] .

Rwanda/United Kingdom

BBC, ‘UK wins court case over collapsed Rwanda asylum deal', 1 June 2026

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has rejected Rwanda's claim for compensation against the United Kingdom, following the annulment of the migration arrangement concluded between the two states in 2022. The aim of this informal agreement was to deport to Rwanda foreign nationals who had arrived on British soil ‘irregularly' and whose applications for protection had been declared inadmissible. The UK Supreme Court had ruled that this arrangement was unlawful on the grounds that Rwanda could not be considered a safe country for refugees. In 2024, under the Starmer government, the agreement was finally cancelled and payments suspended. Rwanda then initiated arbitration proceedings in January 2026, claiming £50 million in compensation from the United Kingdom.

This brings to a close a legal dispute that clearly illustrates the commercial logic inherent in border externalisation, which reduces asylum seekers to a bargaining chip, enabling, on the one hand, European countries to rid themselves of people deemed ‘undesirable', and, on the other, enabling non-European authoritarian regimes to secure financial inflows and achieve diplomatic rehabilitation as legitimate partners of European countries [11] .

Austria

InfoMigrants, ‘Austria limits refugee family reunification under new quota system', 21 May 2026

The Austrian Parliament has passed a new law introducing annual caps on family reunification, the level of which has not yet been set. This law follows a measure suspending family reunification procedures adopted in 2025, justified on the grounds of an alleged ‘overburdening' of social services, and adopted by unjustifiably invoking the ‘emergency clause' provided for in Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [12] .

With the introduction of this quota system, Austria is flouting its obligations regarding reception and protection: the law will result in the separation of families, in breach of the right to family life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, which have established that quotas applied to family reunification are unlawful in the absence of an individual assessment of each situation [13] .

Cyprus

CyprusMail, ‘EU earmarks €800m for Cyprus to tackle immigration', 8 June 2026

Cyprus will receive 800 million euros from the EU for the period 2028–2034, earmarked for ‘migration management', representing a 70 per cent increase on the 480 million allocated for the period 2021–2027.

To date, EU funding has been used to build camps, to facilitate forced returns (Cyprus has recorded an unprecedented number of deportations of migrants in recent years), or to step up operations to identify people without the right to remain. At the end of May, three migrant people jumped from a balcony in Larnaca to escape the intensifying raids across the country. One of them died [14] .

Cyprus has repeatedly been accused of and found guilty of violating the rights of migrants, including refoulement [15] . Yet the southern part of the island will continue to benefit from the EU's support and cooperation in its migration policies that infringe upon the rights and lives of migrants.

Greece

Al Jazeera, ‘Greece reopens Syrian and Afghan asylum cases, hoping for returns', 1 June 2026

Since February, Greece has reopened all asylum cases likely to be rejected. As part of this process, the cases of Syrian and Afghan nationals – particularly men – are being subject to almost systematic re-examination, with rejection rates rising sharply. This review appears to reflect a broader political desire to rid the country of Muslim migrants or those from predominantly Muslim countries by deporting them to regimes where serious human rights violations have been documented. The Minister for Migration and Asylum, Athanasios Plevris, has openly embraced this racist shift during a recent parliamentary hearing, stating that Greece prefers to welcome non-Muslim migrant workers.

Greece's strategy is part of a wider European climate of growing racism and Islamophobia. Several European countries, led by Germany, are now considering the forced return of Afghan and Syrian nationals, despite the extremely dangerous situation in their countries of origin. The European Union itself hosted a Taliban delegation in Brussels on 23 June, to negotiate the deportations of Afghans [16] , and has renewed its cooperation agreement with Syria – ending the partial suspension in place since 2011 – which reflects a desire to speed up the forced returns of Syrian refugees residing throughout Europe [17] .

Italy/Albania

La Repubblica, “Palazzo Chigi tries again: ‘Migrants picked up at sea to be held in centres in Albania' ”, 11 May 2026

The Italian government is reportedly working on a new decree under the Italy–Albania Memorandum of Understanding (2023). The aim is said to be to revert to the original plan to outsource the fast-track processing of asylum applications to the camps in Shëngjin and Gjadër – under Italian jurisdiction. Those affected are migrants intercepted at sea by the Italian authorities, who come from so-called ‘safe' countries and are considered ‘non-vulnerable'. According to the government, this change would be made possible by the European Pact on Migration and Asylum, which came into force on 12 June 2026.

The initial project had so far been held up by several court rulings. The court in Rome has repeatedly refused to authorise detention in the camps in Albania, ruling that the countries of origin of the people concerned, such as Bangladesh and Egypt, could not be considered ‘safe' under European law [18] . To prevent these camps from becoming unused, Italy converted them in 2025 into Italian detention and deportation centres (CPRs) [19]. The entry into force of the Pact could, however, remove these obstacles. The Pact does indeed allow a country to be classified as partially ‘safe' and facilitates the use of accelerated procedures for nationals of countries with a low asylum recognition rate (< 20 per cent). Together with the new common European list of ‘safe countries of origin', these measures provide Italy with a more solid legal basis for reactivating the Albanian centres [20] .

However, doubts remain, particularly regarding Italy's ability to detain asylum seekers undergoing standard procedures on territory outside the EU – an issue referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is expected to rule in the coming months [21] .

Sweden

InfoMigrants, ‘Sweden: Parliament passes law obliging public authorities to report undocumented migrants' migrants', 16 June 2026

On Monday 15 June, the Swedish Parliament passed two bills aimed at stepping up the deportation of migrants. The first measure, known as the ‘snitch law', obliges six public authorities (employment, pensions, tax, debt, social insurance and the prison service) to report to the police any undocumented migrants with whom their staff come into contact. The second, known as the ‘good conduct' law, provides for the deportation of foreign nationals residing in Sweden who do not lead an ‘honest life'.

These measures establish a state apparatus of control and coercion in Sweden, which will lead to racial profiling, discrimination based on appearance and serious infringements of migrants' rights. The ‘snitch law' risks preventing migrantd people from accessing social rights; they may forgo essential services – including going to hospital or school – for fear of being denounced. By systematically using government departments and public services as tools for surveillance, it foreshadows the ‘return' regulation – adopted on 17 June by the European Parliament – which authorises raids in public places and private homes.

The ‘good conduct' law, does not specify the criteria for defining what would constitute ‘bad conduct'. Its discretionary nature exposes migrants to the risk of having their residence permits refused or revoked on the basis of behaviour that is neither illegal nor punishable for Swedish citizens. This amounts to the deliberate creation of legal uncertainty and the imposition of conditions on rights, which is dissuasive and contrary to the rule of law. These measures will foster fear and self-censorship amongst migrants.

]] .

United Kingdom

France24, ‘Violent anti-immigration protests in Belfast following an attack attributed to a refugee', 9 June 2026

France24, “Mass rally against racism in Belfast following anti-immigrant riots”, 13 June 2026

On 9 June, anti-immigrant demonstrations took place in Belfast (Northern Ireland) in the wake of a knife attack attributed to a Sudanese national, footage of which was shared on social media. Neo-fascist groups set fire to cars and homes, most of which belonged to migrant people. A few days later, a large anti-racist demonstration was organised to condemn this wave of racist violence.

This incident illustrates a well-known pattern in several European countries and beyond: an offence or crime committed by a foreign national is exploited to target entire communities of migrants and to legitimise violent attacks and racially motivated intimidation against them. This dynamic is part of a context of a sharp rise in racism and the far right in the United Kingdom – visible both on social media and in public spaces (murals inciting racial hatred, anti-migrant rallies, etc.) [22] – which threatens the lives and safety of migrant people and non-white people.

InfoMigrants, ‘In the UK, the government wants to expand the sponsored refugee scheme' scheme', 30 June 2026

On 30 June, the UK Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced the introduction of a refugee sponsorship scheme, which will come into force in autumn 2027. In practice, universities, businesses and other organisations will now be able to sponsor a person recognised as a refugee under Article 1 of the1951 Geneva Convention, enabling them to settle legally in the UK. The organisations responsible for this sponsorship will be in charge of providing accommodation, facilitating integration and assisting with the selected individuals' entry into the labour market. The number of potential beneficiaries has not yet been specified, and applications will remain subject to strict government scrutiny.

This announcement comes against a backdrop of a general tightening of UK asylum policy. Sponsorship schemes are, in fact, frequently used by governments to project an image of selective generosity towards ‘genuine refugees' (Mahmood uses the term ‘genuine refugees'), whilst diverting attention from deterrence policies that remain unchanged, or that are strengthened. Sponsorship schemes thus become instruments of a policy of selection, enabling states to set quotas for people entering their territory and to select certain categories of refugees based on their level of qualifications or their religion (church-sponsored schemes spring to mind) [23]. Furthermore, the state shrinks its responsibilities regarding protection and asylum by transferring a legal obligation to the private sector. Beyond the individual benefits that selected people may enjoy, this scheme, which is part of a highly repressive UK policy towards migrants, risks distorting the spirit of the right to asylum, which could then be reduced to ‘a neoliberal, privatised immigration scheme, reserved solely for highly skilled and educated migrants, or for certain ethnic or religious groups' [24] .

United Kingdom/France

Le Monde, “Migration: a first step towards the Europeanisation of the management of Channel crossings ”, 23 June

The ‘One in, one out' agreement (2025) between France and the United Kingdom will not be renewed after October 2026. It will be replaced by a European Commission action plan for the Channel migration route, drawn up in partnership with the United Kingdom and published on June 16.

The ‘One in, one out' agreement currently stipulates that, for every asylum seeker the United Kingdom undertakes to admit through ‘legal channels', France agrees in return to readmit to its territory one person who has arrived in the United Kingdom so-called irregularly [25]. The new action plan sets out a repressive approach centred on three pillars: strengthening diplomatic cooperation with countries of origin and transit to facilitate deportations; the ‘fight against people-smugglers' (which raises fears of increased criminalisation of migrants and solidarity organisations [26] ); and increasing the resources allocated to law enforcement and border control. Unsurprisingly, the text refers to the need to curb ‘illegal' migration in order to deter people from undertaking dangerous journeys. This is a rhetorical ploy that obscures the fact that it is precisely the sealing off of borders that drives many people to continue undertaking these dangerous journeys.

Switzerland

Euractiv, ‘Swiss reject divisive anti-immigration proposal', 14 June 2026

On 14 June, 54 per cent of Swiss voters rejected the anti-immigration initiative ‘No to a Switzerland with 10 million!'. This initiative was put forward by the far-right SVP party and identified asylum seekers as the cause of thepopulation growth that, according to SVP, is jeopardising the country's ‘sustainability'. The text called for the permanent resident population to be kept below the ten-million mark by 2050, through repressive migration measures that contravened the country's obligations regarding reception and protection. Once the population reached 9.5 million, asylum seekers granted temporary leave would no longer have any prospect of remaining in the country. Should the population exceed 10 million, international agreements accused of encouraging population growth would have to be renegotiated or even withdrawn. The application of texts such as the Global Compact for Migration, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons would be threatened [27] .

The initiative failed thanks to strong opposition from employers' organisations and trade unions, which feared severe repercussions for employment and growth. Although many of the arguments in favour of a ‘no' vote were economic in nature, the rejection of the initiative remains a significant victory and a setback for the far right's vision of society. A vision that would have exposed migrants to a real risk of being turned back at the borders and of asylum procedures being suspended, and which would have led – through the possibility of renouncing international human rights agreements – to a general weakening of these protections for everyone, not just for migrants.

Chisinau Declaration

Euractiv, ‘European countries urge rethink of human rights on migration', 15 May 2026

On 15 May 2026, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a declaration in Chisinau (Moldova) proposing a restrictive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in order to facilitate the deportation of migrants who have not been granted the right of residence or who have committed serious offences. The declaration proposes a reinterpretation of Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) to ‘rebalance' the individual rights of migrants against ‘the public interest and public security'. It also proposes narrowing the scope of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), so that insufficient access to healthcare or precarious socio-economic conditions in the country of deportation cannot constitute inhuman or degrading treatment that would prevent forced return. It should be noted, however, that Article 3 admits of no exceptions.

The Council of Europe has thus acted on the declaration issued in December 2025 by 27 member states calling for a more restrictive interpretation of the ECHR with regard to forced returns. Whilst the Chisinau Declaration remains non-binding in legal terms, it constitutes a worrying political development which will contribute – alongside recent European legislation (‘safe' countries of origin, ‘safe' third countries, the ‘Return' Regulation) -to entrench in the collective imagination the need to systematise dangerous deportations, in the name of so-called security imperatives. It also constitutes political interference in the interpretation of the ECHR, illustrating a European trend towards challenging the legitimacy of the judiciary [28] , which has been accused by several right-wing and far-right governments of favouring progressive positions on migration.

Entry into force of the Migration and Asylum Pact

Mediapart, ‘Migration and Asylum Pact: a day of shame for the European Union', 12 June 2026

On 12 June, the European Pact on Migration and Asylum came into force. It constitutes a comprehensive reform of European policy in this area, introducing far-reaching changes at the EU's borders. It establishes new screening procedures for anyone arriving at the EU's external borders. Following this screening, some people may be subject to accelerated border asylum procedures, leading to deportation if their application is rejected. Throughout all these stages, people are deprived of their liberty, likely in isolated locations that are difficult for lawyers, doctors, journalists and civil society organisations to access. They are also kept in a legal ‘fiction of non-entry': whilst physically present on European soil, they are legally considered not to have entered. This enables states to deport them more easily, paving the way for lower standards of fundamental rights.

Deprivation of liberty is therefore becoming the norm, and access to asylum – as well as to an effective remedy – is drastically restricted. Indeed, more people will be subject to accelerated procedures, on the assumption that they do notrequire protection: those from countries where the asylum recognition rate in the EU is below 20 per cent, those from so-called ‘safe' countries of origin, and those suspected of posing a ‘threat to public order', a vague and undefined concept. Furthermore, if individuals subject to a deportation order appeal against that decision, their appeal will not have suspensive effect, and the Pact authorises deportation even before a final decision has been taken.

In short, this Pact institutionalises, at a European level, the detention, registration, screening and expulsion of migrants at Europe's borders.

Final adoption of the ‘return' regulation

RFI, ‘Migration: the European Parliament adopts reform providing for “return hubs” hubs”', 17 June 2026

Le Monde, “‘Send them back!' chant far-right MEPs in the European Parliament”, 17 June 2026

On 17 June, the European Parliament gave final approval to the ‘return' regulation, amidst applause and racist chants from right-wing and far-right MEPs in the chamber, who shouted “Send them back!”. The text provides for a massive detention system (lasting up to two years, with the possibility of indefinite extension in the event of a threat to public security), the conversion of third countries into ‘return hubs', to which migrants may be deported even if they have no connection to those countries [29] , as well as ‘investigative' measures authorising raids on homes and in public spaces, the seizure of electronic devices and the obligation to provide biometric data to the authorities.

The proposed measures cross a red line by establishing a regime of widespread surveillance within the EU: migrants without the right to reside will be subjected to a veritable manhunt and deported to countries known to be unsafe (European governments are currently considering deportations to Rwanda, Uganda, Libya, Egypt… [30] ). This regulation institutionalises the violation of fundamental rights and international law: it will lead to breaches of the principle of non-refoulement, flout the right to private and family life, and expose migrantd people to inhuman and degrading treatment [31] .

A Taliban delegation in Brussels

InfoMigrants, ‘Unprecedented meeting between the EU and Taliban officials to discuss the return of Afghans to their country of origin', 24 June 2026

Euractiv, “The Taliban use their visit to Brussels to request consular access in Europe”, 23 June 2026

On 23 June, members of the European Commission met with a Taliban delegation to continue negotiations on the forced return of Afghan nationals without the right to reside in the EU. In exchange for their cooperation with these deportations, the Taliban requested the restoration of consular services for Afghans across Europe.

Once again, the EU's anti-immigration obsession is leading to the normalisation of relations with a repressive regime, with the aim of deporting people at any cost [32] . As the restoration of consular services is a fundamental condition set by the Taliban, the end result of these negotiations risks being a de facto legitimisation of the Afghan regime, which has established gender apartheid [33] and is responsible for the systematic violation of human rights in Afghanistan [34] . By normalising its relations with the Taliban, the European Union is eroding its own standards on fundamental rights, pushing the boundaries of what is considered ‘acceptable' ever further. If these negotiations are successful, the Afghan nationals concerned risk being deported to face torture and death.

Press Review May/June 2026

[1] See the EuroMed Rights factsheet on this subject, ‘Safe on paper, dangerous in reality: Egypt and the EU's return policy', June 2025

[2] See OHCHR, “Egypt: UN experts raise alarm over violations against refugees and migrants”, 6 March 2026

[3] 14 people, including E Hishri, are currently the subject of international arrest warrants in connection with this investigation. Some of them have died, whilst others are on the run.

[4] See, in particular, Amnesty International, “Libya: European governments are complicit in human rights violations against refugees and migrants”, 12 December 2017

[5] For further information, see the press release from Refugees in Libya, “Civil society statement: Detention crimes in Libya finally before the ICC: Judges to decide whether El Hishri case moves to trial”, 11 May 2026

[6] This refusal to cooperate with the Court has led to two complaints being lodged against Italy with the European Court of Human Rights. See, on this subject, InfoMigrants, “Italy facing two complaints with the ECHR for releasing the Libyan migrant torturer Osama Almasri Najim”, 1 June 2026

[7] Almasri was recently sentenced by a court in Tripoli to 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment, whilst still being the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the ICC. Libya, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute (the founding treaty of the ICC), is not obliged to hand him over to the Court. See in this regard Il Post, “General Almasri has been sentenced in Libya to 7 years and 4 months for acts of violence against migrants”, 21 June 2026.

[8] See, on this subject, the information on Libya on Migreurop, “The Maghreb states and the European Union are guilty of systematic violations of international law and crimes against humanity”, 7 April 2026

[9] See also Refugees in Libya, “Book of Shame. How UNHCR Fails to Protect Refugees in Libya, Tunisia, and Niger”, 2025

[10] See on this subject Migreurop, “CEUTA Factsheet”, Isaline Roverato, 2024

[11] See also Migreurop, “UK–Rwanda Agreement: Outsourcing Asylum to Africa, a Massive Deterrent in Europe”, 20 June 2022

[12] See on this subject InfoMigrants, “Austria: family reunification suspended for a further six months”, 12 December 2025

[13] See in particular Amnesty International Austria, ‘Nationalrat adopts quota system for family reunification: Amnesty warns of human rights violations', 19 May 2026

[14] See in particular Cyprus Mail, “Migrant dies following balcony jump during immigration raid”, 27 May 2026

[15] See on this subject Cyprus Mail, ‘UNHCR expresses concern over alleged pushback of Syrian refugees', 19 March 2025 and InfoMigrants, ‘Cyprus condemned by the ECHR for pushing back two Syrians at sea', 9 October 2024

[16] See below

[17] See, on this subject, The New Arab, ‘Eyeing migrant returns, EU moves to bolster Syria ties', 12 May 2026

[18] See also “Rome court does not uphold the detention of migrants in Albania”, 18 October 2024

[19] See SkyTG24, ‘How migrant centres in Albania work', 9 June 2025

[20] See Fanpage, ‘Why, under the new EU regulation, Meloni can reopen the centres in Albania', 10 December 2025

[21] See also Italian Coalition for Freedom and Civil Rights (CILD), “The Italy-Albania Protocol before the Court of Justice of the EU”, 10 December 2025

[22] See, in particular, the International Federation for Human Rights, ‘Northern Ireland: racist violence and intimidation must stop', 11 June 2026

[23] See on this subject Nikolas Feith Tan, ‘Community Sponsorship of Refugees and Local Governance', in Theorising Local Migration Law and Governance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022, pp. 252–271

[24] Ibid., p. 258.

[25] See on this subject the short documentary by MSF Frontlines, ‘One in, one out: thousands of lives at risk', 21 May 2026

[26] On this point, see PICUM, ‘Migrant smuggling: why we need a paradigm shift', 18 July 2022

[27] See on this subject Amnesty International, ‘The “No Switzerland at 10 million” initiative: a frontal attack on the protection of human rights', 7 May 2026

[28] See on this subject Joël Andriantsimbazovina, ‘Political pressure on the European Court of Human Rights', Le Club des Juristes, 12 June 2025

[29] A coalition of five Member States has already begun negotiations with third countries with a view to establishing return hubs. See Euractiv, “EU return hubs to be revealed by autumn, says Dutch minister”, 5 June 2026

[30] See Human Rights Watch, ‘Dangerous EU Momentum Towards Offshore Deportation Centres', 26 June 2026

[31] For further reading, see in particular Migreurop, ‘Adoption of the EU “Return” Regulation: the death knell for international law', 26 March 2026

[32] Agreements with Libya or Turkey are further examples.

[33] For further information, see Human Rights Watch, ‘Gender Apartheid as an International Crime: Taliban Oppression in Afghanistan Triggers Campaign', 2 September 2025

[34] See also Amnesty International, ‘Afghanistan: the human rights situation in 2025', 2026

Press review April 2026

Camille — 2026-05-11T09:26:18Z

Sommaire

Tunisia

Business News, Taking the streets to break the silence: citizen mobilisation against racism in Tunis, 11 April 2026

Following a citizens' petition launched on 7 April and shared on social media, a solidarity march against racism took place in Tunis on Saturday 11 April. Slogans were chanted to denounce racist online discourse, discriminatory remarks by certain Tunisian MPs, and the crackdown on migrants and human rights defenders in Tunisia.

Racism against migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and Black Tunisians is intensifying in the country. Disinformation and hate campaigns orchestrated by Kaïs Saïed's government, arbitrary arrests and prosecutions based on false accusations against anti-racist activists [1], as well as growing pressure on civil society organisations showing solidarity, are shaping the reality in Tunisia today. This situation is partly a result of the role of ‘border guard' that Tunisia has assumed on behalf of Italy and the European Union, particularly since 2023, under the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding, which is strongly supported by the Italian government and aims to deter and hinder departures to Europe.

Despite this widespread repression, citizen mobilisation demonstrates that civil society is not wavering andcontinues to resist and mobilise in defence of human rights, the violations of which place responsibility on the EU and its externalisation policies.

Judgement of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal
Lebrief.ma, “Permanent Peoples' Tribunal: Maghreb states and the European Union responsible for systematic violations of migrants'rights”, 6 April 2026

On 31 March in Rabat, the jury of the56thsession of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (PPT) delivered its final judgement. Following an indictment drafted by a coalition of civil society organisations, the PPT found the Maghreb states, the EU and several of its member states guilty of systematic and systemic violations of international law (failure to provide assistance to persons in danger, arbitrary detention, torture, refoulement, racial discrimination and human rights violations). During the hearings held in October 2025 in Palermo (Italy), evidence was presented regarding the existence in Libya of a system of refoulement, detention, trafficking and exploitation; refoulement, abandonment in the desert and racist violence in Tunisia; a continuum of violence ranging from arbitrary detention in Libya to the criminalisationof migrants and their supporters in Europe; relentless attacks on civilian sea rescue operations... The EU and its Member States have been deemed complicit in these human rights violations for having financed and encouraged these crimes, notably through their border externalisation policies.

Beyond the states' violations of international law, the TPP also mentions the possible classification of these acts as crimes against humanity, insofar as the documented facts result from deliberate choices made by individuals and acts carried out in full awareness.

This judgement, which has no legally binding force, nevertheless represents a symbolic step forward in securing recognition, by a citizens' court, of the crimes committed against migrants. It is a first step towards mobilising public opinion and breaking down the barriers of silence, hatred and marginalisation surrounding migration issues [2] .

Belgium
RTL info, “‘This can no longer be a taboo subject': government gives green light to controversial measure”, 3 April 2026

The Belgian government has approved, at second reading, the draft bill authorising “home visits” (2025), which would allow the police, with a judge's authorisation, to carry out searches at the home of a person without a residence permit who is deemed to pose “a threat to public order or national security”, with the aim of arresting and deporting them.

The proposal raises serious concerns regarding fundamental rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), as well as the principle of the inviolability of the home (Article 15 of the Belgian Constitution). These rights are threatened by the undefined concept of ‘danger to public order', which opens the door to arbitrariness. Furthermore, no legal remedy is provided for challengingthe legality of the ‘visit', which violates the right to an effective remedy [3] . Several civil society organisations and public institutions denounced the draft law as soon as it was tabled last year, considering it to be inconsistent with the criteria of necessity and proportionality [4] . If approved by Parliament, it would constitute a further step in the construction of a surveillance regime for migrants that European governments are attempting to establish in Europe [5] .

Belgium/Algeria
InfoMigrants, “Belgium concludes an agreement with Algeria to speed up the deportation of irregular Algerian migrants”, 2 April 2026

Belgium and Algeria have concluded an agreement on the deportation of Algerian nationals. The agreement, which still requires approval by the Belgian Parliament, stipulates that Algeria undertakes to identify its nationals subject to a deportation order within 15 days, as well as to accept the possibility of organising their group deportation on dedicated flights, with the participation of Algerian escorts. However, the legality of group deportations of people of the same nationality is questionable in light of human rights legislation (the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) which prohibits collective deportations. In return, Belgium grants visa-free access to its territory to holders of Algerian diplomatic passports.

This is yet another example of agreements - whether formal or informal - concluded with the aim of speeding up the deportation of foreign nationals from Europe in exchange for financial, commercial or political benefits. It amounts to a diplomacy of deportation, in defiance of fundamental rights.Many voices are therefore speaking out to denounce a systematic violation of rights in Algeria: the shrinking of civil society space , severe repression of freedom of expression, infringements on the right to peaceful assembly and association, andallegations of torture and other ill-treatment are some examples of this [6] . Furthermore, severe penalties are provided for in cases of ‘illegal' departure from or assistance with departure from Algerian territory, carrying a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment [7] , which is contrary to international law (Art. 12(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: ‘Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own').

Greece
BBC, “Greek police using masked migrants to forcibly push other migrants back across border”, 14 April 2026

New evidence has been gathered regarding the recruitment, by the Greek authorities, of migrants to push other migrants back at the border with Turkey (Evros River region). In return, they are reportedly given money, as well as administrative documents allowing them to remain in Greece for 25 days.

This practice is not new and has been documented by several organisations and investigations since at least 2020 [8] . The recruitment of migrants as “mercenaries” is reportedly carried out under duress, after they have crossed the border between Turkey and Greece. Wearing masks, these individuals are reportedly tasked with carrying out pushbacks and committing other acts of violence, such as forced stripping, beatings and theft of personal belongings. In exchange for documents allowing them to remain in European territory for a time. A form of exploitation of migrantsfor the ‘control' of borders, onto whom the Greek and European authorities are attempting to shift responsibility for violent practices that violate human rights. In a familiar exercise in denial, both Greece and Frontex claim to have no knowledge of these events.

Italy
Il Post, “A better understanding of the two migrant issues that have been in the news for days”, 23 April 2026
Il Post, “The government has patched up the rule on voluntary repatriation”, 24 April 2026

On 24 April, the Italian government approved a bill aimed at amending a migration-related measure contained in the “security decree”, which was adopted by Parliament on the same day. The measure provided for the payment of a €615 bonus to lawyers handling so-called “voluntary” return procedures in the event that the return was successful, but it had been blocked by the President of the Republic on grounds of unconstitutionality. Under this hastily introduced amendment, the bonus will now be paid to lawyers and other parties involved in the implementation of “voluntary returns”, regardless of the outcome. The bill still needs to be approved by the Italian Parliament.

A second measure, which came into force as part of the adopted “security decree”, removes the automatic provision of legal aid for migrants challenging deportation proceedings. They will now have to prove that they meet the means-testing criteria by providing documents (notably a consular certificate) that are often very difficult to obtain within the time limits set by law.

In the name of an ‘urgency' to deport people more quickly and efficiently, Italy is undermining its obligations to guarantee rights by attempting to undermine the independence and autonomy of lawyers, and by introducing administrative constraints that make access to legal aid virtually impossible for certain migrant individuals. Although the initial version of the first measure was not adopted, recent developments point to a growing and serious threat to migrants' right to a defence, which should nevertheless be “full, free and effectively accessible” [9] .

Italy/Albania
Politico, “Italy's migrant detention hubs in Albania not against EU law, says top EU court adviser”, 23 April 2026

An Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that the Italy-Albania Memorandum of Understanding (2023) [10] is, in principle, in line with European law. The agreement would not prevent Member States from setting up detention camps outside their territory for the purposes of expulsion procedures and/or the processing of asylum applications, provided that the third country concerned complies with EU law and respects the rights of migrants.

This is a non-binding opinion, yet it contributes to the political legitimisation of the latest iteration of the European externalisation policy, initiated by Italy, and which has inspired new European regulations (see the 2026 ‘Return' Regulation).

In this regard, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights noted in 2023 that “the possibility of lodging an asylum application and having it examined on the territory of Member States remains an indispensable component of a reliable system that respects human rights”, adding that “the Memorandum of Understanding creates an ad hoc extraterritorial asylum regime, characterised by numerous legal ambiguities [11] . We must now await the final decision of the CJEU.

Netherlands
DutchNews, “Senate rejects bill to criminalise living in the Netherlands without papers”, 21 April 2026
InfoMigrants, “The Netherlands adopts dual status for asylum seekers”, 23 April 2026

On 21 April, the Senate rejected a bill aimed at criminalising so-called ‘irregular' residence, which would have led to an increased risk of social exclusion for migrants, as well as exposing those providing humanitarian aid – particularly by supplying food, shelter or any other form of support – to legal risks.

This rejection follows a widespread mobilisation of Dutch civil society. Around 120 organisations joined the “Stop de asielwetten” (Stop the asylum laws) campaign, highlighting the potential negative effects of the law on effective access to fundamental rights such as education, healthcare and legal aid, which must be guaranteed regardless of a person's administrative status. Municipalities, including Amsterdam, also voiced their opposition, demonstrating that the local level can act as a counterweight to the state.

However, this victory was described as “bittersweet” by the campaign coalition [12] , as the Senate approved a “dual status” system for migrant asylum seekers, which will grant different rights to those fleeing individual persecution – who would benefit from so-called “full” protection as refugees – and those fleeing wars or natural disasters, who would have limited rights, particularly regarding family reunification. This distinction already exists in many European countries (refugee status and subsidiary protection). Its introduction in the Netherlands, where until now the rights of both categories of asylum seekers were the same, is raising concerns within civil society regarding respect for human dignity. The coalition therefore says it is ready to continue its fight against the Dutch government's repressive migration policies. A struggle that appears increasingly urgent in the current European context, dominated by racist ideologies and legislation that infringes upon the rights of migrants.

Poland
InfoMigrants, “Drop in crossings at the Poland-Belarus border: ‘Dangerous routes will be used more frequently'”, 10 April 2026

The Polish government recently reported a sharp decline in attempts to cross the border between Poland and Belarus over the past four years, which it attributes to the increased militarisation of the border and the temporary suspension of the registration of asylum applications. Organisations assisting refugees warn that, in reality, these policies have merely forced refugees to cross the border via underground tunnels under extremely dangerous conditions.

Poland – like other European countries, citing a rise in asylum applications and arrivals on their territory – has decided to suspend the registration of asylum applications at its borders in 2024. This breach of its international obligations was carried out with the EU's approval, which allows for the restriction of asylum applications under so-called ‘exceptional' circumstances, particularly for Member States facing a ‘crisis situation', a ‘mass influx' or the ‘exploitation of migration flows'. Since 2021, Warsaw has accused Minsk of coordinating with Moscow to facilitate the arrival of migrants in order to “destabilise” the EU's territory [13] .

Among the consequences of this suspension are the 14,754 illegal pushbacks to Belarus carried out by the Polish authorities between January and December 2025, which violated the rights of those affected and exposed them to inhuman and degrading conditions [14] . However, the increase in border crossings via tunnels and other alternative routes demonstrates once again that repressive and security-focused migration policies do not put an end to migration flows: they make the journeys more dangerous and longer, and force migrants to turn to facilitators who have become necessary in the context of closed borders [15] .

United Kingdom/France

Le Monde, “New Franco-British agreement to stem migrant crossings of the English Channel”, 23 April 2025

France and the United Kingdom have reached an agreement to extend the cooperation agreement aimed at preventing so-called “irregular” crossings of the English Channel (Sandhurst Treaty, 2018) [16] . The United Kingdom will provide funding of up to €766 million over three years, including a “flexible component” (€186 million), conditional on the effectiveness of measures taken to “prevent attempted crossings”. This decision comes after months of tension, during which the UK had insisted that France increase at-sea interceptions of “small boats” (small vessels used for Channel crossings), failing which it would not have renewed its funding [17].

France had initially opposed this, with the Secretary of State for the Sea, Xavier Ducept, emphasising that the interception practices demanded by the UK risked violating international law and “endangering the lives of migrants and French officers” [18] . Indeed, interceptions by French law enforcement agencies to return migrantsto the French coast (pullback) – on behalf of the United Kingdom – constitute a form of refoulement, a practice contrary to international law and an infringement of the right to asylum.

However, numerous violent pushbacks have already been documented in connection with the UK-funded French ‘surveillance' operations in the English Channel [19] . Furthermore, police operations carried out against migrants on the French coast, with the aim of preventing departures to the UK (violent dismantling of camps, use of tear gas, seizure of personal belongings, physical assaults), constantly endanger the safety, rights and lives of migrants [20] . France is therefore setting aside its ‘concerns' regarding the lives of migrants and respect for the law in favour of a deadly cooperation [21] that has gone from strength to strength over the last twenty years (the Le Touquet agreements, the ‘One In, One Out' agreement).

Negotiations between the EU and the Taliban

Euractiv, “Brussels set to host the Taliban for talks on the deportation of Afghans, 21 April 2026

The European Union is preparing to host a Taliban delegation to continue discussions on the deportation of Afghan nationals from European territory (January 2026) [22] , particularly regarding the cooperation of the Afghan authorities in the process of identification and the issuance of travel documents.

These talks take place against a backdrop of growing pressure from Member State governments to establish a European mechanism to coordinate the deportation of Afghans without the right to reside or who have been convicted by the courts. In October 2025, 20 Member States, at Belgium's initiative, had asked the European Commission to establish this mechanism, and in February 2026 Germany became the first European country, since the Taliban took power (2021), to carry out a direct deportation to Afghanistan [23] .

Whilst the EU had hitherto hidden behind the fiction of ‘safe countries of origin or third countries' to carry out deportations of migrants, it is now taking a further step with the proposed ‘return' regulation, which provides for deportations to any third country that has concluded a formal or informal agreement with a Member State or with the Union. However, the compromise text adopted by the European Parliament on 26 March 2026 further stipulates that“any communication [with third countries for the purposes of readmission] shall in no way prejudice the Union's position on the status of the territories or entities concerned and shall not be considered as recognition, support or validation of their authority or legitimacy ” (Art. 37). Presented under a supposedly “technical” guise, these discussions with the Taliban, whose regime the EU itself acknowledges has led to a “significant deterioration (…) in human rights for the Afghan population [24] , could lead to the institutionalisation of the violation of the principle of non-refoulement and expose the individuals concerned to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary executions, and other serious human rights violations in Afghanistan.

Press review April 2026

[1] See Migreurop, “Press Review: March 2026”, 8 April 2026

[2] See Migreurop, “Maghreb and European Union states guilty of systematic violations of international law and crimes against humanity”, 7 April 2026.

[3] See on this subject Myria, “Law on home visits: vague conditions and few safeguards”, 30 July 2025 and Ciré, “This is not fiction, it is a draft law!”, 27 November 2025

[4] Ibid.

[5] See on this subject Migreurop, “Press review February 2026”, 10 March 2026, on the “return” regulation

[6] See in particular Amnesty International, “The State of Human Rights in the World”, April 2025, pages 91–94

[7] Ibid

[8] See on this subject Lighthouse Reports, “We were slaves”, 28 June 2022; or Human Rights Watch, “Their Faces Were Covered”. Greece's Use of Migrants as Police Auxiliaries in Pushbacks, 7 April 2022

[9] See in particular the press release from the National Association of Italian Magistrates (ANM), “Security Decree: dismay at attack on the right to defence”, 18 April 2026

[10] For further information, see the Migreurop press release, “Italy-Albania Memorandum of Understanding on Migration: Cross-Border Cooperation Contrary to International Law”, 13 February 2024

[11] See the statement by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, “The agreement between Italy and Albania confirms the worrying European trend towards externalising asylum procedures”, 13 November 2023

[12] See in particular Stop de Asielwetten, “A bittersweet victory: Criminalisation off the table”, 21 April 2026

[13] The suspension of the right to asylum was subsequently extended four times in 2025 and once in 2026.

[14] See in particular the joint report “Beaten back at Europe's borders – 2025 annual report on pushbacks”,February 2026, pages 11–13.

[15] According to the report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Global study on smuggling of migrants”, June 2018, the demand for facilitation services is determined primarily by the limitation of so-called “legal” routes of access to certain territories.

[16] The Sandhurst Treaty provides that the United Kingdom shall fund part of the measures taken by France to “secure” French beaches, as the Franco-British border is situated on French soil. Since its signing in 2018 and to date, the United Kingdom has paid approximately €540 million to France.

[17] See on this subject InfoMigrants, “Crossings of the English Channel: London and Paris extend their agreement to secure the border by just two months”, 1 April 2026

[18] Ibid.

[19] See The Guardian, “Revealed: UK-funded French forces putting migrants' lives at risk with small-boat tactics”, 23 March 2026

[20] See the report by the Human Rights Network, “You can't stay but you can't go – State violence at the UK-France border”, December 2025

[21] See InfoMigrants, “Tighter police controls make crossing the Channel more deadly, say researchers”, 31 March 2026

[22] See on this subject Euractiv, “Migration: European Commission announces that discussions with the Taliban on returns are underway”, 20 October 2025

[23] See also InfoMigrants, “Germany deports 20 Afghan criminals to Kabul”, 27 February 2026

[24] See in particular the European Council's factsheet on Afghanistan

Revue de presse avril 2026

Camille — 2026-05-11T08:33:35Z

Sommaire

Tunisie

Business News, « La rue pour briser le silence : mobilisation citoyenne contre le racisme à Tunis », le 11 avril 2026

À la suite d'une pétition citoyenne lancée le 7 avril et diffusée sur les réseaux sociaux, une marche de solidarité contre le racisme s'est tenue à Tunis le samedi 11 avril. Des slogans ont été scandés pour dénoncer les discours racistes en ligne, les propos discriminatoires de certain·e·s député·e·s tunisien·ne·s, ainsi que la répression visant les migrant·e·s et les défenseur·e·s des droits en Tunisie.

Le racisme envers les migrant·e·s d'Afrique subsaharienne et les Tunisien·ne·s noir·e·s s'intensifie dans le pays. Des campagnes de désinformation et de haine orchestrées par le gouvernement de Kaïs Saïed, des arrestations arbitraires et des poursuites fondées sur de fausses accusations contre les militant·e·s antiracistes [1], ainsi que des pressions croissantes sur la société civile solidaire façonnent aujourd'hui la réalité tunisienne. Cette situation s'inscrit en partie dans le rôle de « garde-frontière » que la Tunisie a endossé pour le compte de l'Italie et de l'Union européenne, surtout depuis 2023, dans le cadre du mémorandum d'entente UE-Tunisie, fortement soutenu par le gouvernement italien et visant à dissuader et entraver les départs vers l'Europe.

Malgré cette répression généralisée, la mobilisation citoyenne démontre que la société civile ne faiblit pas, et continue de résister et de se mobiliser pour la défense des droits humains, dont les violations engagent la responsabilité de l'UE et de ses politiques d'externalisation.

Jugement du Tribunal Permanent des Peuples

Lebrief.ma, « Tribunal permanent des peuples : les États du Maghreb et l'Union européenne responsables de violations systématiques des droits des migrants », le 6 avril 2026

Le 31 mars à Rabat, le jury de la 56e session du Tribunal permanent des peuples (TPP) a rendu sonjugement définitif. À la suite d'un acte d'accusation rédigé par une coalition d'organisations de la société civile, le TPP a reconnu les États du Maghreb, l'UE et plusieurs de ses États membres coupables de violations systématiques et systémiques du droit international (non-assistance à personnes en danger, détentions arbitraires, torture, refoulements, discriminations raciales, violations des droits). Lors des audiences qui se sont tenues en octobre 2025 à Palerme (Italie), des éléments de preuve ont été présentés tels que l'existence en Libye d'un système de refoulement, de détention, de traite et d'exploitation ; des refoulements, abandons dans le désert et des violences racistes en Tunisie ; un continuum de violences allant de la détention arbitraire en Libye jusqu'à la criminalisation des exilé·e·s et de leurs soutiens en Europe ; des attaques incessantes contre les opérations civiles de sauvetage en mer...L'UE et ses États membres ont été considérés complices de ces violations des droits pour avoir financé et encouragé ces crimes, notamment à travers leurs politiques d'externalisation des frontières.

Au-delà des violations du droit international par les États, le TPP mentionne également la possible qualification de crimes contre l'Humanité, dans la mesure où les faits documentés résultent de choix délibérés d'individus et d'actes effectués en pleine conscience.

Ce jugement, qui n'a pas de valeur juridique contraignante, représente toutefois une avancée symbolique permettant la reconnaissance, par une juridiction citoyenne, des crimes perpétrés contre les personnes migrantes. C'est une première étape visant à mobiliser l'opinion publique et à dépasser les barrières du silence, de la haine et de la marginalisation qui entourent les questions migratoires [2]

Belgique

RTL info, « Il ne peut plus s'agir d'un sujet tabou » : le gouvernement donne son feu vert à une mesure controversée », le 3 avril 2026

Le gouvernement belge a approuvé en deuxième lecture le projet de loi autorisant les « visites domiciliaires » (2025), qui permettrait à la police, avec l'autorisation d'un juge, d'effectuer des perquisitions au domicile d'une personne sans titre de séjour, qui représenterait « un danger pour l'ordre public ou la sécurité nationale », dans le but de procéder à son arrestation et à son expulsion.

Le projet suscite de graves inquiétudes au regard des droits fondamentaux, tels que le droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale (art. 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme), ainsi que du principe de l'inviolabilité du domicile (art. 15 de la Constitution belge). Ces droits sont menacés par la notion non définie de « danger pour l'ordre public », qui ouvre la porte à l'arbitraire. En outre, aucun recours n'est prévu pour contester la légalité de la « visite », ce qui viole le droit à un recours effectif [3].

Plusieurs organisations de la société civile, et des institutions publiques, ont dénoncé le projet de loi dès son dépôt l'année dernière, en l'estimant non conforme aux critères de nécessité et de proportionnalité [4].

S'il est approuvé par le Parlement, il constituerait une nouvelle pierre dans la construction d'un régime de surveillance des personnes exilées que les gouvernements européens tentent de mettre en place en Europe [5].

Belgique/Algérie

InfoMigrants, « La Belgique conclut un accord avec l'Algérie pour accélérer les expulsions d'Algériens en situation irrégulière », le 2 avril 2026

La Belgique et l'Algérie ont conclu un accord sur l'expulsion des ressortissant·e·s algérien·ne·s. L'accord, qui doit encore être approuvé par le Parlement belge, prévoit que l'Algérie s'engage à identifier ses ressortissant·e·s faisant l'objet d'une mesure d'expulsion dans un délai de 15 jours , ainsi qu'à accepter la possibilité de prévoir leur expulsion groupée dans des vols dédiés,avec la participation d'escortes algériennes. Pourtant, la légalité des renvois groupés de personnes d'une même nationalité est contestable au regard des textes protégeant les droits humains (Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme, Charte européenne des droits fondamentaux) qui prohibent les expulsions collectives. En contrepartie, la Belgique accorde un accès sans visa à son territoire aux titulaires de passeports diplomatiques algériens.

Il s'agit de l'énième exemple d'accords, formels ou informels, conclu afin d'accélérer les expulsions de personnes étrangères depuis l'Europe, en contrepartie d'avantages financiers, commerciaux ou politiques. Une diplomatie du renvoi, au mépris des droits fondamentaux. Nombreuses sont ainsi les voix qui s'élèvent pour dénoncer une violation systématique des droits en Algérie : rétrécissement de l'espace de la société civile, répression sévère de la liberté d'expression, atteintes au droit de réunion pacifique et d'association, et allégations de torture et autres mauvais traitements en sont certaines des illustrations [6].

Par ailleurs, des sanctions sévères sont prévues en cas de sortie et d'aide à la sortie « illégale » du territoire algérien, pouvant aller jusqu'à cinq ans d'emprisonnement [7], ce qui est contraire au droit international (art.12-2 Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques « Toute personne est libre de quitter n'importe quel pays, y compris le sien »).

Grèce

BBC, « Greek police using masked migrants to forcibly push other migrants back across border », le 14 avril 2026

De nouvelles preuves ont été recueillies concernant le recrutement, par les autorités grecques, de personnes migrantes pour refouler d'autres exilé·e·s à la frontière avec la Turquie (région du fleuve Evros). En contrepartie, celles-ci recevraient de l'argent, ainsi que des documents administratifs leur permettant de demeurer en Grèce pendant 25 jours.

Cette pratique n'est pas inédite et est documentée par plusieurs organisations et enquêtes depuis au moins 2020 [8]. Le recrutement d'exilé·e·s en tant que « mercenaires » se ferait sous la contrainte, après leur franchissement de la frontière entre la Turquie et la Grèce. Masquées, ces personnes seraient chargées de procéder à des refoulements et d'exercer d'autres formes de violences, telles que des déshabillages forcés, des passages à tabac et des vols d'effets personnels. En échange de documents leur permettant de se maintenir un temps sur le territoire européen.Une forme d'exploitation des migrant·e·s pour le « contrôle » des frontières, à qui les autorités grecques et européennes tenteraient de transférer la responsabilité de pratiques violentes et attentatoires aux droits humains. Dans un exercice bien connu de déni, la Grèce comme Frontex déclarent ne pas avoir connaissance de ces faits.

Italie

Il Post, « Capire meglio le due questioni sui migranti di cui si parla da giorni », le 23 avril 2026
Il Post, « Il governo ha messo una pezza alla norma sui rimpatri volontari », le 24 avril 2026

Le 24 avril, le gouvernement italien a approuvé un projet de loi visant à modifier une mesure relative aux migrations contenue dans le « décret sûreté », adopté le même jour par le Parlement . La mesure prévoyait l'octroi d'une prime de 615 euros aux avocat·e·s chargé·e·s des procédures de retour dit « volontaire » dans le cas où ce retour aboutirait, mais elle avait été bloquée par le Président de la République pour motif d'inconstitutionnalité. Dans cette modification précipitée, la prime sera désormais versée aux avocat·e·s et à d'autres acteur·rice·s impliqué·e·s dans la mise en œuvre des « retours volontaires », indépendamment de l'issue. Le projet de loi doit encore être approuvé par le Parlement italien.

Une deuxième mesure, entrée en vigueur dans le cadre du « décret sûreté » adopté, supprime l'octroi automatique de l'aide juridictionnelle pour les personnes migrantes contestant une procédure d'expulsion. Celles-ci devront désormais prouver qu'elles remplissent les conditions de ressources en fournissant des documents (notamment une attestation consulaire) souvent très difficiles à obtenir dans les délais prévus par la loi.

Au nom d'une prétendue urgence à expulser plus rapidement et plus efficacement, l'Italie porte atteinte à ses obligations en matière de garantie des droits, en tentant de fragiliser l'indépendance et l'autonomie des avocat·e·s, et en introduisant des contraintes administratives qui rendent l'accès à l'aide juridictionnelle pour certaines personnes exilées quasiment impossible. Même si la version initiale de la première mesure n'a pas été adoptée, les évolutions récentes témoignent d'une menace croissante et grave sur le droit à la défense des personnes migrantes, qui devrait pourtant être « plein, libre et concrètement accessible » [9].

Italie/Albanie

Politico, « Italy's migrant detention hubs in Albania not against EU law, says top EU court adviser » , le 23 avril 2026

Un avocat général à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne (CJUE) a estimé que le protocole d'accord Italie-Albanie (2023) [10] est, en principe, conforme au droit européen. Ce dernier n'empêcherait pas les États membres de mettre en place, en dehors de leur territoire, des camps de détention dédiés aux procédures d'expulsion et/ou au traitement des demandes d'asile, à condition que l'État tiers concerné respecte le droit de l'Union, et les droits des migrant·e·s.

Il s'agit d'un avis non contraignant, qui contribue pourtant à la légitimation politique du nouvel avatar de la politique d'externalisation européenne , initié par l'Italie, et qui a inspiré les nouvelles réglementations européennes (cf. règlement « retour »2026).

La Commissaire aux droits de l'Homme du Conseil de l'Europe a dans ce sens rappelé en 2023 que « la possibilité de déposer une demande d'asile et de la faire examiner sur le territoire des États membres reste une composante indispensable d'un système fiable et respectueux des droits humains », ajoutant que « le protocole d'accord crée un régime d'asile extraterritorial ad hoc, caractérisé par de nombreuses ambiguïtés juridiques [11]. Il reste désormais à attendre la décision définitive de la CJUE.

Pays-Bas

DutchNews, « Senate rejects bill to criminalise living in NL without papers », le 21 avril 2026
InfoMigrants, « Les Pays-Bas adoptent le double statut pour les demandeurs d'asile », le 23 avril 2026

Le 21 avril, le Sénat a rejeté une proposition de loi visant à criminaliser le séjour dit « irrégulier », qui aurait entraîné un risque accru d'exclusion sociale des personnes exilées, ainsi que l'exposition à des risques juridiques pour les personnes apportant une aide humanitaire, notamment en fournissant de la nourriture, un abri ou toute autre forme de soutien.

Ce rejet arrive suite à une large mobilisation de la société civile néerlandaise. Environ 120 organisations ont rejoint la campagne « Stop de asielwetten » (Halte aux lois sur l'asile), en soulignant les effets négatifs potentiels de la loi sur l'accès effectif aux droits fondamentaux tels que l'éducation, les soins de santé et l'assistance juridique, qui doivent être garantis indépendamment du statut administratif des personnes. Des municipalités, dont Amsterdam, ont également manifesté leur opposition, montrant que l'échelon local peut constituer un contre-pouvoir face à l'État.

Cependant, cette victoire a été qualifiée de « douce-amère » par la coalition de la campagne [12], car le Sénat a approuvé un système de « double statut » pour les migrant·e·s demandeur·euses d'asile, qui accordera des droits différents à celles et ceux qui fuient des persécutions individuelles – qui bénéficieraient d'une protection dite « complète » en tant que réfugié·es – et celles et ceux qui fuient des guerres ou des catastrophes naturelles, qui auraient des droits limités, notamment en matière de regroupement familial. Cette distinction existe déjà dans de nombreux pays européens (statut de réfugié·e et protection subsidiaire). Son introduction aux Pays-Bas, où jusqu'ici les droits des deux catégories de demandeur·euse·s d'asile étaient les mêmes [13], suscite des préoccupations au sein de la société civile quant au respect de la dignité humaine. La coalition se dit donc prête à poursuivre sa bataille contre les politiques migratoires répressives du gouvernement néerlandais. Une lutte qui apparaît de plus en plus urgente dans le contexte européen actuel, dominé par les idéologies racistes et les législations attentatoires aux droits des personnes migrantes.

Pologne

InfoMigrants, « Baisse des passages à la frontière entre Pologne et Biélorussie : 'Les itinéraires dangereux seront plus fréquentés », le 10 avril 2026

Le gouvernement polonais a récemment communiqué une forte baisse des tentatives de franchissement de la frontière entre la Pologne et la Biélorussie en quatre ans, qu'il attribue au renforcement de la militarisation de la frontière et à la suspension temporaire de l'enregistrement des demandes d'asile. Les organisations d'aide aux personnes exilées alertent sur le fait qu'en réalité, ces politiques n'ont fait que contraindre les personnes exilées à traverser la frontière via des tunnels souterrains dans des conditions très risquées.

La Pologne – comme d'autres pays européens, arguant d'une hausse des demandes d'asile et des arrivées sur leurs territoire – a décidé de suspendre l'enregistrement des demandes d'asile à ses frontières en 2024. Cette violation de ses obligations internationales a été faite avec l'aval de l'UE, qui permet de limiter l'enregistrement des demandes d'asile dans des circonstances dites « exceptionnelles », notamment pour les États membres confrontés à une « situation de crise », d'« afflux massif » ou à une « instrumentalisation des mouvements migratoires ». Depuis 2021, Varsovie accuse en effet Minsk de coorganiser avec Moscou l'arrivée de personnes migrantes afin de « déstabiliser » le territoire de l'UE [14].

Parmi les effets de cette suspension, figurent les 14 754 refoulements vers la Biélorussie opérés de façon illégalepar les autorités polonaises entre janvier et décembre 2025, violant leurs droits et exposant les personnes exilées à des conditions inhumaines et dégradantes [15].

La multiplication des franchissements de la frontière par des tunnels et autres voies alternatives démontre une fois de plus que les politiques migratoires répressives et sécuritaires ne mettent pas fin aux mouvements migratoires : elles rendent les itinéraires plus dangereux et plus longs, et poussent les personnes exilées à recourir à des facilitateurs devenus nécessaires dans le contexte de fermeture des frontières [16].

Royaume-Uni/France

Le Monde, « Nouvel accord franco-britannique pour endiguer les traversées de migrants en Manche », le 23 avril 2025

La France et le Royaume-Uni ont trouvé un terrain d'entente pour prolonger l'accord de coopération visant à empêcher les traversées dites « irrégulières » de la Manche (traité de Sandhurst, 2018) [17]. Le Royaume-Uni fournira un financement qui pourra aller jusqu'à 766 millions d'euros sur trois ans et qui comprend « une partie flexible »(186 millions d'euros), conditionnée à l'efficacité des dispositions prises pour « prévenir les tentatives de traversées ».

Cette décision intervient après des mois de tensions, durant lesquels le Royaume-Uni avait insisté pour que la France augmente les interceptions en mer des « small boats » (petites embarcations utilisées pour les traversées de la Manche), faute de quoi il n'aurait pas renouvelé ses financements [18].

La France s'y était opposée au départ,le Secrétaire d'État chargé de la Mer, Xavier Ducept ayant souligné que les pratiques d'interception exigées par le Royaume-Uni risqueraient de violer le droit international et de mettre « en danger la vie des personnes exilées et des agents français » [19].

En effet, les interceptions par les forces de l'ordre françaises pour ramener les exilé.e.s vers le littoral français (pullback) - pour le compte du Royaume-Uni - constituent une forme de refoulement, une pratique contraire au droit international et attentatoire au droit d'asile. Mais de nombreux et violents pullbacks ont déjà été documentésdans le cadre des opérations françaises de « surveillance » dans la Manche financées par le Royaume-Uni [20]. De plus, les opérations policières menées à l'encontre des exilé·e·s sur les côtes françaises, dans le but d'entraver les départs vers le R.U. (démantèlement violent de campements, utilisation de gaz lacrymogène, saisie de biens personnels, agressions physiques), mettent en danger constant la sécurité, les droits et la vie des exilé·e·s [21].

La France met donc de coté ses « préoccupations » concernant la vie des migrant·e·s et le respect du droit, au profit d'une coopération meurtrière [22] qui n'a cessé de se renforcer au cours des vingt dernières années (accords du Touquet, accord « One In, One Out »).

Négociations entre l'UE et les talibans

Euractiv, « Bruxelles devrait accueillir les talibans pour des discussions sur les expulsions d'Afghans » , le 21 avril 2026

L'Union européenne s'apprête à accueillir une délégation de talibans afin de poursuivre les discussions sur l'expulsion de ressortissant·e·s afghan·e·s depuis le territoire européen (janvier 2026) [23], notamment en ce qui concerne la coopération des autorités afghanes dans le processus d'identification et la délivrance de documents de voyage.

Ces échanges s'inscrivent dans un contexte de pressions croissantes de la part des gouvernements des États membres en faveur de la mise en place d'un mécanisme européen visant à coordonner les expulsions des Afghan·e·s dépourvu·e·s de droit au séjour ou condamné·e·s par la justice. En octobre 2025, 20 États membres, à l'initiative de la Belgique, avaient demandé à la Commission européenne d'instaurer ce mécanisme, et en février 2026 l'Allemagne a été le premier pays européen, depuis la prise de pouvoir des talibans (2021), à procéder à une expulsion directe vers l'Afghanistan [24].

Si l'UE s'était jusqu'ici abritée derrière la fiction des « pays d'origine ou tiers sûrs » pour procéder à des expulsions de personnes exilées, elle franchit aujourd'hui une étape supplémentaire avec la proposition de règlement « retour », prévoyant des expulsions vers tout pays tiers ayant conclu un accord formel ou informel avec un État membre ou avec l'Union. Mais le texte de compromis adopté par le Parlement européen le 26 mars 2026 prévoit en outre que« toute communication [avec les États tiers à des fins de réadmission] ne préjuge en rien de la position de l'Union sur le statut des territoires ou des entités concernés et ne saurait être considérée comme une reconnaissance, un soutien ou une validation de leur autorité ou de leur légitimité » (art. 37).

Présentées sous un angle prétendument « technique », ces discussions avec les talibans, dont l'UE reconnaît elle-même que le régime a entraîné une « dégradation sensible (…) des droits de l'Homme pour la population afghane » [25], pourraient conduire à une institutionnalisation de la violation du principe de non-refoulement et exposer les personnes concernées à la torture, à des traitements inhumains et dégradants, à des exécutions arbitraires, et à d'autres graves violations de droits en Afghanistan.

Revue de presse avril 2026

[1] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop, « Revue de presse mars 2026 », 8 avril 2026

[2] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop, « Les États du Maghreb et de l'Union européenne coupables de violations systématiques du droit international et de crimes contre l'humanité », 7 avril 2026.

[3] Voir à ce sujet Myria, « Loi sur les visites domiciliaires : des conditions vagues et peu de garantie » , 30 juillet 2025 et Ciré, « Ceci n'est pas une fiction, c'est un projet de loi ! », 27 novembre 2025

[4] Ibidem

[5] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop, « Revue de presse février 2026 », 10 mars 2026, sur le règlement « retour »

[6] Voir notamment Amnesty International, « La situation des droits humains dans le monde », avril 2025, pages 91-94

[7] Ibidem

[8] Voir à ce sujet Lighthouse Reports, « “We were slaves” », 28 juin 2022 ; ou encore Human Rights Watch, « “Their Faces Were Covered”. Greece's Use of Migrants as Police Auxiliaries in Pushbacks », 7 avril 2022

[9] Voir notamment le communiqué de presse de l'association nationale des magistrat·e·s italien·ne·s (ANM) , « Decreto Sicurezza : sconcerto per attacco a diritto di difesa », 18 avril 2026

[10] Pour en savoir plus, lire le communiqué de Migreurop, « Protocole d'accord Italie/Albanie sur les migrations : une coopération transfrontière contraire au droit international », 13 février 2024

[11] Voir la déclaration du Commissaire aux droits de l'Homme du Conseil de l'Europe, « L'accord entre l'Italie et l'Albanie confirme l'inquiétante tendance européenne à externaliser les procédures d'asile », 13 novembre 2023

[12] Voir notamment Stop de Asielwetten, « Een bitterzoete overwinning : Strafbaarstelling van tafel », 21 avril 2026

[13] Voir à ce sujet Refugee Help, « House of Representatives agrees to stricter laws on asylum : now the Senate must decide », 23 décembre 2025

[14] La suspension du droit d'asile a ensuite été prolongée quatre fois en 2025 e une fois en 2026.

[15] Voir notamment le rapport conjoint « Beaten back at Europe's borders - 2025 annual report on pushbacks »,février 2026, pages 11-13.

[16] Selon le rapport de l'Office des Nations Unies contre la drogue et le crime, « Global study on smuggling of migrants », juin 2018, la demande de services de facilitation est déterminée surtout par la limitation des voies dites « légales » d'accès à certaines territoires.

[17] Le traité de Sandhurst prévoit que le Royaume-Uni finance une partie des actions menées par la France pour « sécuriser » les plages françaises, la frontière franco-britannique étant située sur le sol français. Depuis sa signature en 2018 et jusqu'ici, le Royaume-Uni a versé environ 540 millions d'euros à la France.

[18] Voir à ce sujet InfoMigrants, « Traversées de la Manche : Londres et Paris prolongent de deux mois seulement leur accord pour sécuriser la frontière », 1 avril 2026

[19] Ibidem

[20] Voir à ce sujet The Guardian, « Revealed : UK-funded French forces putting migrants' lives at risk with small-boat tactics », 23 mars 2026

[21] Voir le report de Humans for Rights Network, « You can't stay but you can't go - State violence at the UK-France border », décembre 2025

[22] Voir à ce sujet InfoMigrants, « Le renforcement des contrôles policiers rend la traversée de la Manche plus mortelle, selon des chercheurs », 31 mars 2026

[23] Voir à ce sujet Euractiv, « Migrations : la Commission européenne annonce que des discussions avec les talibans sur les retours sont en cours », 20 octobre 2025

[24] Voir à ce sujet InfoMigrants, « L'Allemagne expulse 20 criminels afghans vers Kaboul »,27 février 2026

[25] Voir notamment la fiche de l'Afghanistan du Conseil de l'Union européenne

Press Review March 2026

Camille — 2026-04-08T15:12:53Z

Sommaire

Libya

InfoMigrants, ‘Mediterranean: 2,500 migrants intercepted at sea and forcibly returned to Libya since the start of 2026', 12 March 2026

Since the beginning of 2026, more than 2,500 migrants have been intercepted in the Mediterranean by the Libyan coastguard and forcibly returned to Libya. These interceptions are carried out on the basis of an agreement concluded in 2017 between Italy and Libya, which provides for logistical and financial support from Italy and the European Union to the Libyan authorities in order to prevent departures to Europe. An informal agreement that has effectively established a mechanism of systematic ‘pullbacks' [1] : interceptions at sea, coordinated by the European agency Frontex, followed by the forced return of people to the Libyan coast by local authorities, who are formally responsible for the search and rescue (SAR) zone. Migrants are then detained in Libyan camps. It is against this backdrop that the European Commission's recent decision to fund the construction of a Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) in Benghazi [2] has been taken. The project, promoted by the Italian government, extends the ‘pullback' mechanism to eastern Libya, complementing the centre already operational in Tripoli. Furthermore, the management of the new centre could be linked to the Tareq Ben Zayed militia, which controls the territory and is suspected of being involved in the attack on the humanitarian vessel Ocean Viking in August 2025 [3] .

Over the years, the cooperation between the European Union and Libya has facilitated the refoulement, arbitrary detention and torture of thousands of people [4]. A confidential European Union report from 2022 [5] also notes “excessive use of force, disproportionate acts and armed violence” during interceptions at sea by the Libyan authorities. Furthermore, the conditions of detention for migrants in Libya have been the subject of numerous alerts due to serious human rights violations [6] . Libya offers no guarantee of protection in line with international standards on protection and asylum. Despite this, European and Italian funding, aimed at outsourcing the management of migration to this unsafe country, continues to pour in.

Tunisia

BBC News Africa, ‘Prominent anti-racism activist in Tunisia sentenced to eight years in prison', 21 March 2026

The Tunis Court of First Instance has sentenced anti-racism activist Saadia Mosbah to eight years in prison and a heavy fine for “money laundering” and “illicit enrichment”. This verdict comes against a backdrop of increasing criminalisation of migrant rights defenders in Tunisia. In recent years, Mosbah, president of the Mnèmty association, has been at the forefront of defending the rights of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, against President Kaïs Saïed's racist rhetoric and policies. For the past two years, Mnèmty and many other organisations supporting migrants have been targeted by a wave of repression: government-orchestrated smear campaigns on social media, and the arrest and prosecution of activists.

The criminalisation of Tunisian civil society continues with the tacit consent of the European Union, which has granted over €100 million in funding to Tunisia under a migration deal concluded in 2023, aimed at preventing migrants from crossing the Mediterranean. Mosbah and the convicted activists are now paying the price for this arrangement [7] : by supporting Saïed's migration policy with the aim of deterring departures, the EU bears responsibility for the arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders in Tunisia and for the violations of their fundamental rights.

Germany

InfoMigrants,‘Germany: following al-Charaa's visit, Merz hopes for a mass return of Syrian refugees'', 31 March 2026

During a visit by Syrian President Ahmed al-Charaa to Berlin on Monday 30 March, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated his intention to deport, in the medium term, 80% of Syrian refugees currently in Germany. According to him, there would no longer be any reason for these people to remain on German soil following the fall of the Assad regime.

The idea of deporting such a large number of people reveals a xenophobic and racist approach, aimed at getting rid of those considered ‘undesirable' on German soil as quickly as possible and at any cost [8] . Furthermore, Syria remains a deeply unstable country, marked by the destruction of essential infrastructure. In October 2025, the German Foreign Minister stated during a visit to the country that it was “practically impossible for people to live there with dignity in the short term” [9] . Serious human rights violations also continue to be documented in the country. On 12 March, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic presented its latest report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, revealing that the political transition remains undermined by human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, acts of torture and ill-treatment, as well as enforced disappearances [10]. Under these circumstances, the safety of the deported nationals cannot be guaranteed, and Germany risks becoming complicit in such human rights violations.

Belgium

Politico, ‘Belgium to press ahead with restriction on asylum-seekers despite court decision', 4 March 2026

The Belgian Constitutional Court has temporarily suspended a measure aimed at restricting access to material reception conditions for migrants who have already been granted protection in another EU Member State. The Court emphasised that this provision could cause “serious and difficult-to-repair harm” by exposing people to precarious circumstances [11]. Despite this suspension, the Belgian government has stated its intention to continue applying this measure in order to “avoid overburdeningthe reception system”.

Since 2021, the Belgian authorities have refused to adapt this system to the increase in asylum applications, exposing many migrants to undignified living conditions, without access to healthcare or appropriate accommodation. More than 12,000 rulings by national and international courts have ordered Belgium to provide dignified reception. Yet these rulings have been systematically ignored and circumvented, particularly since the new government came to power in 2023, adopting a more restrictive migration policy [12]. This disregard for Belgian court rulings is part of a broader context of challenges to national, European and international law on migration: it comes as no surprise that the country features on the list of states that signed an open letter in 2025 calling for a more flexible interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (protection of private and family life) [13]. Belgium has thus chosen to protect its borders from an imagined migration threat, in defiance of human rights.

Croatia/Bosnia and Herzegovina

InfoMigrants,‘On the border between Croatia and Bosnia, the construction of a reception centre divides, 13 March 2026

Croatia recently announced the construction of a new “reception centre” for migrants on its border with Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time, the European agency Frontex plans to increase the presence of its officers in Bosnia, which the EU considers a major “geopolitical investment” in the management of migration flows. The stated aim is to achieve a “high level” of cooperation with the Bosni an border police in the “fight against illegal immigration and the prevention of cross-border crime”.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a candidate for accession to the European Union and constitutes a stop on the Balkan migration route: a key location for the consolidation of ‘Fortress Europe'. Its border with Croatia is notoriously marked by impunity for human rights violations committed by Croatian and Bosnian authorities [14]. The pushbacks of migrants attempting to reach European soil are rife, and asylum seekers who manage to reach Croatia are placed in asylum seeker centres (currently two in the country) under appalling conditions. Access to healthcare is limited, hygiene conditions are poor, and cases of arbitrary rejection of certain applications for protection have been documented [15] . Reports have also highlighted that the Croatian authorities have been implicated in the arbitrary detention and torture of people in so-called ‘irregular' situations in ad hoc facilities [16] . The construction of a centre on the border risks leading to an increase in such situations.

In this context, the increased presence of Frontex (which operates in Bosnia under a status agreementsigned in 2025 between the EU and Sarajevo [17] ) risks contributing to the human rights violations described above. All the more so given that, under this agreement (Article 12), the agency enjoys immunity for all acts carried out as part of a joint operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, before any criminal, civil or administrative court in the country [18] .

Spain

La Vanguardia, ‘Undocumented migrants will be able to access healthcare by making a sworn statement', 10 March 2026

Since 10 March 2026, the Spanish healthcare system has been open to people without the necessary documents to reside in the country. This measure removes administrative barriers that previously prevented many people from accessing medical care. Under the new rules, anyone able to prove their residence in Spain can apply for healthcare coverage at their local health centre and immediately benefit from temporary cover whilst their application is being processed. As the Spanish Minister of Health emphasised, this measure “aims to ensure fairness and prevent inequalities”, whilst enabling “better monitoring of illnesses in primary care and a more efficient use of public resources”.

This decision follows an ‘extraordinary' regularisation measure for migrants (2026) and the Spanish government's explicit refusal to support the European ‘returnhubs' project (countries outside Europe to which people without the right to stay in Europe would be deported), established by the Return Regulation, the negotiating mandate for which was confirmed on 26 March by the European Parliament. It should nevertheless be noted that Spain continues to outsource the management of migration, particularly to Morocco and Mauritania, which makes it complicit in the human rights violations committed against people on the move in these countries [19] .

Portugal

The Portugal Post, ‘Portugal Tightens Immigration Laws: Detention Extended to 18 Months and Deportation Rules Transformed ', 19 March 2025

The Portuguese government has approved a bill marking a further step in the repressive shift in its policy towards migrants. The maximum period of administrative detention for people without the right to stay has been extended (from 60 to 540 days) and those who apply for protection after entering the country outside authorised border posts will be subject to stricter coercive measures, including detention, while their case is being examined. The text also introduces an entry ban in the event of forced expulsion for up to five years, a period which may be extended in the event of a criminal conviction or a threat to national security. Furthermore, lodging an application for protection will no longer suspend the deportation procedure, and finally, any person without the right to reside is subject to an ‘obligation to leave voluntarily' (!) : those concerned must leave the country without waiting for formal notification, on pain of forced deportation and therefore a ban on entry. This reform removes the interim period between formal notification and the actual loss of the right to reside, a period which until now allowed individuals to regularise their administrative status or consult a lawyer. It should be noted that, according to the text, these forced removal measures will not apply to minors under the age of 16. The draft bill is currently under parliamentary scrutiny.

Several organisations defending the rights of migrants have condemned this as a political manoeuvre by the centre-right coalition aimed at appealing to a more conservative electorate in the run-up to future elections. This strategy is part of a broader trend observed in other European states where migrants are being exploited for electoral purposes, with a populist agenda.

With the adoption of a new European regulation on the return of persons without the right to reside in the EU, which is directly applicable in Member States, measures against migrants awaiting deportation are set to become even harsher.

Sweden

Le Monde, ‘Sweden presents a bill to deport migrants who do not lead an ‘honest life'', 24 March 2026
RFI, ‘Sweden: government pushes ahead with bill to report migrants without residence permits', 25 March 2026

At the end of March, the Swedish government presented two bills aimed at stepping up the deportation of migrants. The first provides for the deportation of migrants who do not lead an ‘honest life'. The second would oblige six public administrations (the employment agency, social security, the prison service, the debt collection agency, the pensions authority and the tax authority) to report to the police those suspected of so-called “irregular” residence. It also introduces new grounds for revoking residence permits when a person is considered a ‘threat' to public order or national security, or when they have provided inaccurate information in their application.

The first measure causes serious concern due to its vague and discretionary nature. What criteria would be used to define an ‘honest life'? What methods would be employed to assess an individual's alleged moral character? This measure, which relies on deeply subjective assessments, would pave the way for the establishment of two parallel normative systems. Statements that are not criminally punishable could thus lead to the deportation of migrants, whereas they would have no legal consequences for Swedish citizens. Furthermore, there is a risk of creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of reinforcing self-censorship among migrants.

The second bill is part of a broader, Europe-wide drive to strengthen widespread surveillance of private and public spaces in order to ‘flush out' those without the right to reside. It would accentuate the role of government agencies as tools of control, threatening the right to privacy due to the potential sharing of sensitive data, encouraging racial profiling and discrimination based on appearance, and creating ethical dilemmas for public sector professionals [20] .

United Kingdom

The Guardian, ‘What are Shabana Mahmood's changes to the asylum system? ', 5 March 2026

On 5 March, the British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced the implementation of new measures on migration and asylum. Refugee status is now reduced from five years to 30 months (renewable). At the end of this period, if the third country is considered safe, its nationals may be deported there. Furthermore, the period required to obtain permanent resident status has been extended from 10 to 20 years, the obligation to provide public financial support to asylum seekers has been suspended, and up to £40,000 will be offered to families whose asylum applications have been rejected to return voluntarily to their country: if they refuse, the authorities will be able to use force, including against minors.

The latest in a long line of tightening measures in UK immigration policy, this new set of repressive measures strays from the spirit, if not the letter, of the human rights conventions to which the United Kingdom is a State part. Firstly, migrant people will be kept in a state of constant uncertainty, preventing them from rebuilding their lives and exposing them to a constant threat of deportation [21] . Furthermore, the possibility of forcibly returning families whose asylum applications have been or will be rejected risks violating the right to respect for private and family life, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the principle of the best interests of the child, enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and recognised by all European human rights instruments. Finally, the forced return of nationals from countries considered safe could constitute a form of discrimination based on nationality.

Several British civil society organisations have condemned these developments in a joint statement. They are calling on the government to suspend the reduction in the duration of refugee status, describing the UK policy as ‘performative cruelty', a source of instability, injustice and inefficiency [22] .

United Kingdom/Nigeria

BBC, “ UK agrees deal to ease migrant returns to Nigeria ”, 19 March 2026

On 19 March, the UK and Nigeria reached an agreement aimed at speeding up the deportation of Nigerian nationals who do not have the right to remain, have been convicted by the courts, or whose asylum applications have been rejected. From now on, the British authorities will no longer have to wait for Nigeria to issue consular laissez-passer to proceed with a deportation: the Nigerian authorities will accept identification documents issued by the United Kingdom (the ‘UK letters'). The agreement also provides for enhanced cooperation in the fight against “smuggling networks”. In this regard, Nigeria has committed to reviewing its national legislation to ensure harsher penalties for “migration-related offences”, which risks leading to increased criminalisation of migrants, as well as solidarity organisations.

The use of informal documents such as UK letters could lead to arbitrary deportations, due to unilateral identification (identity and nationality) of the person forcibly returned by the UK. This measure could also infringe upon the right to private and family life of Nigerians residing in the UK.

This agreement marks a new stage in the ‘return diplomacy' [23] pursued by the UK since Keir Starmer's government came to power. As early as September 2025, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had implemented a strategy to suspend the issuance of visas for nationals of certain African countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Namibia, Angola) as a means of pressure to secure more ‘effective' cooperation from these countries in the readmission of deported individuals [24] .

Adoption of the Return Regulation

Libération,“European Parliament approves creation of ‘return hubs' for migrants outside the EU”, 26 March 2026

On 26 March 2026, the European Parliament confirmed in plenary the negotiating mandate adopted by the LIBE Committee for a new common system regarding the expulsion of third-country nationals without the right to reside in the Union (known as the ‘Return Regulation'), resulting from an alliance between the right and the far right. Among the measures envisaged: systematic detention for all migrants (extension of the grounds for detention, maximum detention period increased to 24 months and cumulative across Member States, possibility of detention in prisons); deportations to third countries (return hubs), without effective oversight by European institutions and without a suspension clause in the event of rights violations; an acceleration of forced returns through the mutual recognition of deportation measures between Member States, potentially without individual review, and which may be enforced prior to any final decision; in certain cases, permanent entry bans into EU territory are envisaged.

The umpteenth milestone in the war on migrants that began 30 years ago, this regulation consolidates the long-standing erosion of rights, crossing new red lines. It risks leading, in very concrete terms, to dangerous returns, violations of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of non-refoulement, and exposing people on the move to inhuman and degrading treatment [25] . The speed of this vote is also worrying, as the proposed text was adopted by the European Parliament barely a year after the Commission's proposal. This reveals that the far-right agenda is now taking hold at the highest levels of the European institutions: in the wake of the European Pact, the Return Regulation enshrines a reshaping of EU law to adapt it to a racist, anti-migration and anti-democratic ideology [26] .

EU/Nigeria agreement

Euobserver,“EU offers cash and defence deal as it links migrant returns pact with Nigeria”, 23 March 2026

Nigeria and the European Union have concluded an agreement for the return of Nigerian nationals without the right to reside in the EU, in exchange for €288 million in funding for digitalisation, the modernisation of the health sector and agricultural value chains in Nigeria.

The agreement illustrates the European trend of linking cooperation on deportations to promises of economic and diplomatic benefits (the ‘cash-for-migrants' approach), to the detriment of the fundamental rights of displaced persons. Nigeria is indeed facing growing insecurity, high inflation, violence by local armed groups, allegations of torture and deep-seated exclusion of young people, exacerbated by a decline in civil and political freedoms. In this context, the deportation of Nigerian nationals from the EU could expose some individuals to inhuman and degrading treatment and social exclusion, due to limited prospects for reintegration. Furthermore, similar informal agreements in the Sahel region have coincided with harsh anti-migration laws, the criminalisation of civil society, and the militarisation of borders, contributing to the normalisation of repression under the guise of ensuring ‘stability' and ‘order' [27] at the national level.

Frontex

Le Monde,“Fabrice Leggeri, former director of Frontex and RN MEP, under investigation for complicity in crimes against humanity'”, 24 March 2026

Following a complaint lodged by NGOs (the Human Rights League and Utopia 56) in April 2024, anU e investigation was opened in France against Fabrice Leggeri, former director of Frontex (2015–2022) and far-right MEP (Patriots for Europe group). He is accused of complicity in crimes against humanity and the crime of torture, in connection with acts of , pushbacks and failure to assist refugees at sea, linked to the deterrence practices implemented by Member States and their enforcement arm, Frontex.

Whilst the opening of an investigation into Leggeri, who sits in the European Parliament as an MEP for the National Rally, represents an important symbolic step, it should be noted that Frontex's mandate and activities have, since the agency's creation, been fundamentally incompatible with respect for fundamental rights. The rights violations committed with impunity and with the complicity of Frontex – denounced by NGOs since 2004 – took place before Leggeri's appointment and continued after his resignation in 2022.

Frontex is the instrument of a repressive policy of mobility restriction that has proven to be incompatible with respect for rights. Within the framework of the agency's mandate, numerous illegal operations have been carried out and extensively documented: collective expulsions, obstruction of the right to asylum, mass pushbacks on the high seas, failure to assist persons in danger, and collaboration with Libyan militias to intercept boats before they reach European territorial waters.

Since its creation in 2004, its mandate, powers and resources have been continually strengthened, and its budget has multiplied in recent years (rising from €6 million in 2005 to over €1 billion in 2026). In June 2026, the European Commission will present to Parliament a fifth revision of the agency's mandate, aimed at further expanding its activities and resources (increased use of surveillance technologies, third-country removals, and an increase in staff from 10,000 to 30,000).

Whilst Frontex had hitherto enjoyed structural impunity, in December 2025 the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that EU law imposed obligations on Frontex regarding the protection of fundamental rights [28] . It was about time.

[1] These operations aim to “physically prevent migrants from leaving the territory of their country of origin or a transit country, or to forcibly return them to that territory, before they can reach the jurisdiction of their country of destination. This means that, unlike ‘pushbacks', which are carried out when a person actually crosses the border, ‘pullbacks' take place before that.” ”, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, May 2021.

[2] See on this subject InfoMigrants, “Mediterranean: EU to fund opening of rescue centre in eastern Libya to intercept migrants at sea”, 27 January 2026

[3] See on this subject Migreurop, “European Union News – December 2025/February 2026”, 4 March 2026

[4] See in particular the press release from Mediterranea, “More millions of euros for collaboration with war criminals in Libya”, 9 January 2026

[5] See in particular AP, “Migrant abuses continue in Libya. So does EU border training”, 25 January 2022, and the report by the Council of the European Union “Four monthly Libyan coast guard and navy monitoring report”, August–November 2021

[6] See, for example, the latest report by the OHCHR and UNSMIL, “Business as Usual: Human Rights Violations and Abuses against Migrants, Asylum-Seekers, and Refugees in Libya”, 17 February 2026

[7] See in particular the joint statement “For the release of activist Saadia Mosbah”, 10 March 2026

[8] As demonstrated by recent agreements with the Taliban in Afghanistan (2025) and with Turkey (2024), aimed at speeding up the deportation of their nationals, Afghans and Turks make up a large proportion of the migrant populations living in Germany.

[9] See on this subject Migreurop, Press Review December 2025, 5 January 2025

[10] United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic', 12 March 2026

[11] Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 23/2026, 26 February 2026

[12] See on this subject Amnesty International “Belgium. Persistent shortcomings in reception violate the rights and dignity of asylum seekers”, 3 April 2025

[13] See the open letter signed by the Heads of State of Italy, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, 22 May 2025

[14] See in this regard the report by the Border Violence Monitoring Network, “Clothes in the river, backpacks on fire: The (in)visibility of pushbacks at the Croatian-Bosnian border”, 11 June 2024

[15] See in particular the Asylum Information Database (AIDA) and the European Council on Refugees and Migrants (ECRE), “Conditions in reception facilities: Croatia”, last updated 20 January

[16] See the Global Detention Project's overview of Croatia, n.d.

[17] SeeCouncil Decision (EU) 2025/1348, 27 January 2025

[18] See on this subject Migreurop, Press Review June 2025, 7 July 2025

[19] See on this subject: Human Rights Watch, “Mauritania: Years of abuses linked to migration controls”, 27 August 2025; ASGI “Morocco: Border policies at the root of forced disappearances and human rights violations”, 14 April 2025

[20] The same concerns have been raised regarding the ‘Return' Regulation, adopted on 26 March by the European Parliament. See on this subject the joint press release ‘Return Regulation: no to a European law that authorises home searches, police in public services and racial profiling', 23 February 2026

[21] See, on this subject, The Guardian, ‘Mahmood's new rules will leave refugees in a cruel state of uncertainty', 8 March 2026

[22] See in particular Scottish Refugee Council, “Charities urge UK government to ‘step up' and be honest about realities of migration”, 5 March 2026

[23] See in particular Migreurop, Press review October 2025, 15 November 2025

[24] See InfoMigrants, “UK uses visa restrictions to pressure African countries on deportation deals”, 30 December 2025

[25] See in particular the Migreurop press release,“Adoption of the European ‘return' regulation: the death of international law”, 26 March 2026

[26] Ibid.

[27] In particular the 2022 EU-Niger partnership

[28] See on this subject Migreurop, Press review December 2025, 5 January 2026

Revue de presse mars 2026

Camille — 2026-04-08T13:22:39Z

Sommaire

Libye

InfoMigrants, « Méditerranée : 2 500 migrants interceptés en mer et ramenés de force en Libye depuis le début de l'année 2026 », 12 mars 2026

Depuis début 2026, plus de 2 500 migrant·e·s ont été intercepté·e·s en Méditerranée par les garde-côtes libyens et renvoyé·e·s de force en Libye. Ces interceptions s'inscrivent dans le cadre d'un arrangement conclu en 2017 entre l'Italie et la Libye, qui prévoit un soutien logistique et financier de l'Italie et de l'Union européenne aux autorités libyennes afin d'empêcher les départs vers l'Europe. Un accord informel qui a de fait mis en place un mécanisme de « pullbacks » [1] systématiques : des interceptions en mer, coordonnées par l'agence européenne Frontex, suivies du renvoi forcé des personnes vers les côtes libyennes par les autorités locales, formellement responsables de la zone de recherche et de sauvetage (SAR). Les personnes migrantes sont ensuite enfermées dans des camps libyens. C'est dans ce contexte que s'inscrit la décision récente de la Commission européenne de financer la construction d'un centre de coordination des secours maritimes (MRCC) à Benghazi [2]. Le projet, porté par le gouvernement italien, étend le mécanisme de « pullback » à l'est de la Libye, en complément du centre déjà opérationnel à Tripoli. Par ailleurs, la gestion du nouveau centre pourrait être liée à la milice Tareq Ben Zayed, qui contrôle le territoire et est soupçonnée d'être impliquée dans l'attaque du navire humanitaire Ocean Viking en août 2025 [3].

Cette coopération entre l'Union européenne et la Libye a permis, au fil des années, le refoulement, la détention arbitraire et la torture de milliers de personnes [4]. Un rapport confidentiel de l'Union européenne datant de 2022 [5] fait d'ailleurs état « d'un usage excessif de la force, d'actes disproportionnés et de violence armée » lors des interceptions en mer par les autorités libyennes. Par ailleurs, les conditions de détention des migrant·e·s en Libye ont fait l'objet de nombreuses alertes en raison de graves violations des droits humains [6]. La Libye n'offre aucune garantie de protection conforme aux standards internationaux en matière de protection et d'asile. Malgré cela, les financements européens et italiens, visant à externaliser la gestion des mouvements migratoiresvers ce pays non sûr, continuent d'affluer.

Tunisie

BBC News Afrique, « Une militante antiraciste de premier plan en Tunisie condamnée à huit ans de prison », le 21 mars 2026

Le tribunal de première instance de Tunis a condamné la militante antiraciste Saadia Mosbah, à huit ans de prison et à une lourde amende pour « blanchiment d'argent » et « enrichissement illicite ». Ce verdict s'inscrit dans un contexte de criminalisation croissante des défenseur·e·s des droits des migrant·e·s en Tunisie. Ces dernières années, Mosbah, présidente de l'association Mnèmty, s'est retrouvée en première ligne dans la défense des droits des migrant·e·s originaires d'Afrique subsaharienne, face à la rhétorique et aux politiques racistes du président Kaïs Saïed. Depuis deux ans, Mnèmty et de nombreuses autres organisations de solidarité avec les migrant·e·s sont particulièrement ciblées par une vague répressive : campagnes de diffamation sur les réseaux sociaux orchestrés par le gouvernement, militant·e·s arrêté·e·s et poursuivi·e·s.

La criminalisation de la société civile tunisienne se poursuit avec l'assentiment tacite de l'Union européenne, qui a accordé un financement de plus de 100 millions d'euros à la Tunisie dans le cadre d'un arrangement migratoire conclu en 2023, visant à empêcher les migrant·e·s de traverser la Méditerranée. Mosbah et les activistes condamné·e·s paient aujourd'hui le prix de cet arrangement [7] : en soutenant la politique migratoire de Saïed dans un objectif de dissuasion des départs, l'UE porte une responsabilité dans les arrestations arbitraires de défenseur·e·s des droits en Tunisie et dans les violations de leurs droits fondamentaux.

Allemagne

InfoMigrants, « Allemagne : après la visite d'al-Charaa, Merz espère un retour massif des réfugiés syriens », le 31 mars 2026

Dans le cadre d'une visite du président syrien Ahmed al-Charaa à Berlin, le lundi 30 mars, le chancelier allemand Friedrich Merz a déclaré vouloir expulser, à moyen terme, 80 % des réfugié·e·s syrien·ne·s présent·e·s en Allemagne. Selon lui, il n'y aurait plus de raison pour ces personnes de rester sur le territoire allemand après la chute du régime d'Assad.

L'idée d'expulser un nombre aussi élevé de personnes révèle une approche xénophobe et raciste, visant à se débarrasser, le plus rapidement possible et à tout prix, de celles et ceux considéré·e·s comme « indésirables » sur le territoire allemand [8]. Par ailleurs, la Syrie demeure un pays profondément instable, marqué par la destruction d'infrastructures essentielles. En octobre 2025, le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères avait déclaré qu'il était « pratiquement impossible pour les gens d'y vivre dans la dignité dans le court terme » [9], lors d'une visite sur place. De graves violations des droits humains continuent également d'être documentées dans le pays. Le 12 mars, La Commission d'enquête internationale indépendante sur la République arabe syrienne a présenté son dernier rapport devant le Conseil des droits de l'Homme des Nations unies, révélant que la transition politique demeure compromise par des violations des droits telles que des exécutions extrajudiciaires, des actes de torture et des mauvais traitements, ainsi que des disparitions forcées [10]. Dans ces conditions, la sécurité des ressortissant·e·s expulsé·e·s ne saurait être garantie, et l'Allemagne risquerait de se rendre complice de telles violations de droits.

Belgique

Politico, « Belgium to press ahed with restriction on asylum-seekers despite court decision », le 4 mars 2026

La Cour constitutionnelle belge a suspendu temporairement une mesure visant à limiter l'accès aux conditions matérielles d'accueil pour les migrant·e·s ayant déjà obtenu une protection dans un autre État membre de l'UE. La Cour a souligné que cette disposition pourrait causer un « préjudice grave et difficilement réparable », en exposant des personnes à la précarité [11]. Malgré cette suspension, le gouvernement belge a déclaré vouloir poursuivre l'application de cette mesure afin d' « éviter de surcharger le système d'accueil ».

Depuis 2021, les autorités belges ont refusé d'adapter ce système à l'augmentation des demandes d'asile, exposant de nombreux·euse·s exilé·e·s à des conditions de vie indignes, sans accès aux soins ni à un hébergement approprié. Plus de 12 000 décisions de juridictions nationales et internationales ont ordonné à la Belgique de fournir un accueil digne. Pourtant, ces décisions ont systématiquement été ignorées et contournées, surtout depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir du nouveau gouvernement en 2023, qui a adopté une politique migratoire plus restrictive [12]. Le mépris des décisions judiciaires belgess'inscrit dans un contexte général de remise en cause du droit national, européen et international en matière migratoire : c'est sans surprise que le pays figure dans la liste des États ayant signé en 2025 une lettre ouverte appelant à une interprétation plus souple de la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme, notamment de l'article 3 (interdiction des traitements inhumains ou dégradants) et de l'article 8 (protection de la vie privée et familiale) [13]. La Belgique choisit ainsi de protéger ses frontières d'une menace migratoire fantasmée, au mépris des droits humains.

Croatie/Bosnie-Herzégovine

InfoMigrants, « A la frontière entre la Croatie et la Bosnie, la construction d'un centre d'accueil divise les habitants », le 13 mars 2026

La Croatie a récemment annoncé la construction d'un nouveau « centre d'accueil » pour les personnes migrantes à sa frontière avec la Bosnie-Herzégovine. Parallèlement, l'agence européenne Frontex prévoit de renforcer la présence de ses agents en Bosnie, considérée par l'UE comme un « investissement géopolitique » majeur dans la gestion des mouvements migratoires. L'objectif affiché est d'atteindre un « niveau élevé » de coopération avec la police des frontières bosniennes dans la « lutte contre l'immigration clandestine et la prévention de la criminalité transfrontalière ».

La Bosnie-Herzégovine est candidate à l'entrée dans l'Union européenne et constitue une étape sur la route migratoire des Balkans : un lieu névralgique de consolidation de l' « Europe Forteresse ». Sa frontière avec la Croatie est notoirement marquée par l'impunité des violations des droits commises par les autorités croates et bosniennes [14] : les refoulements des migrant·e·s qui tentent d'arriver sur le sol européen sont légion et les demandeur·euse·s d'asile qui parviennent en Croatie sont placées dans des centres pour demandeurs d'asile (actuellement deux dans le pays) dans des conditions indignes. L'accès aux soins y est limité, les conditions d'hygiène sont précaires et des cas de refus arbitraire de certaines demandes de protection ont été documentés [15]. Des rapports ont également mis en avant que les autorités croates ont été impliquées dans la détention arbitraire et la torture de personnes en situation dite « irrégulière » dans des installations ad hoc [16]. La construction d'un centre à la frontière risque d'entraîner une multiplication de ce type de situations.

Dans ce cadre, le renforcement de la présence de Frontex (qui opère en Bosnie à la suite d'un accord de statut signé en 2025 entre l'UE et Sarajevo [17]) risque de contribuer aux violations des droits décrites ci-dessus. D'autant plus que, en vertu de cet accord (article 12), l'agence bénéficie d'une immunité pour tous les actes réalisés dans le cadre d'une opération conjointe en Bosnie-Herzégovine, devant toute juridiction pénale, civile ou administrative du pays [18].

Espagne

La Vanguardia, « Los inmigrantes sin papeles accederán a la sanidad con una declaración responsable », le 10 mars 2026

Depuis le 10 mars 2026, le système de santé espagnol est ouvert aux personnes dépourvues de documents pour séjourner dans le pays. Cette mesure supprime des obstacles administratifs qui empêchaient auparavant de nombreuses personnes d'accéder aux soins médicaux. Selon les nouvelles règles, toute personne en mesure de prouver sa résidence en Espagne peut déposer une demande de prise en charge auprès de son centre de santé local et bénéficier immédiatement d'une couverture temporaire pendant le traitement de son dossier. Comme l'a souligné la ministre de la Santé espagnole, cette mesure « vise à garantir l'équité et à prévenir les inégalités », tout en permettant « un meilleur suivi des maladies dans les soins primaires et une utilisation plus efficace des ressources publiques ».

Cette décision fait suite à une mesure de régularisation dite extraordinaire des personnes migrantes (2026) et au refus explicite du gouvernement espagnol de soutenir le projet européen de « return hubs » (pays hors Europe où seraient expulsées les personnes sans droit au séjour en Europe), prévu dans le règlement retour dont le mandat de négociation a été confirmé le 26 mars par le Parlement européen. Il convient néanmoins de rappeler que l'Espagne continue d'externaliser la gestion des mouvements migratoires, notamment vers le Maroc et la Mauritanie, ce qui engage sa responsabilité dans les violations des droits humains commises à l'encontre des exilé·e·s dans ces pays [19].

Portugal

The Portugal Post, « Portugal Tightens Immigration Laws : Detention Extended to 18 Months and Deportation Rules Transformed », le 19 mars 2025

Le gouvernement portugais a approuvé un projet de loi en matière de migration marquant une étape supplémentaire dans le tournant répressif de sa politique à l'égard des personnes exilées. La durée maximale de détention administrative pour les personnes sans droit au séjour a été prolongée(de 60 à 540 jours) et les personnes qui feront une demande de protection après une entrée sur le territoire en-dehors des postes frontières habilités seront soumises à des mesures coercitives plus strictes, dont la détention, pendant l'examen de leur dossier. Le texte introduit également une interdiction d'entrée en cas d'expulsion forcée pouvant atteindre cinqans, durée prolongeable en cas de condamnation pénale ou de menace pour la sécurité nationale. En outre, le dépôt d'une demande de protection ne suspendra plus la procédure d'expulsion, et enfin toute personne sans droit au séjour est soumise à une « obligation de départ volontaire » : les personnes concernées devront quitter le territoire sans attendre de notification formelle, sous peine d'expulsion forcée et donc d'interdiction d'entrée. Cette réforme supprime la période intermédiaire entre la notification formelle et la perte effective du droit au séjour, période qui permettait jusqu'à présent de régulariser sa situation administrative ou de consulter un avocat. À noter que selon le texte, ces mesures de renvoi forcé ne s'appliqueront pas aux mineurs de moins de 16 ans. Le projet de loi est actuellement en cours d'examen parlementaire.

Plusieurs organisations de défense des droits des personnes migrantes dénoncent une manœuvre politique de la coalition de centre-droit visant à séduire un électorat plus conservateur à l'approche de futures échéances électorales. Cette stratégie s'inscrit dans une tendance plus large observée dans d'autres États européens où les migrant·e·s sont instrumentalisé·e·s à des fins électorales, dans une optique populiste.

À l'heure de l'adoption d'un nouveau règlement européen sur le retour des personnes dépourvues de droit de séjour dans l'UE, d'applicabilité directe dans les États membres, les mesures à l'encontre des personnes exilées en instance d'expulsion vont encore s'aggraver.

Suède

Le Monde, « La Suède présente un projet de loi qui prévoit d'expulser les migrants qui ne mènent pas une « vie honnête », le 24 mars 2026

RFI, « Suède : le gouvernement poursuit un projet de loi visant à dénoncer les migrants sans titre de séjour », le 25 mars 2026

Fin mars, le gouvernement suédois a présenté deux projets de loi visant à intensifier les expulsions des personnes exilées. Le premier prévoit l'expulsion des migrant·e·s qui ne mèneraient pas une « vie honnête ». Le deuxième obligerait six administrations publiques (l'agence pour l'emploi, l'assurance sociale, l'administration pénitentiaire, l'agence de recouvrement des dettes, l'autorité des retraites et l'administration fiscale) à signaler à la police les personnes soupçonnées de séjour dit « irrégulier ». Il introduit également de nouveaux motifs de retrait du titre de séjour, notamment lorsqu'une personne est considérée comme une « menace »pour l'ordre public ou la sécurité nationale, ou lorsqu'elle a fourni des informations inexactes dans sa demande.

La première mesure suscite de vives inquiétudes en raison de son caractère vague et discrétionnaire. Quels critères permettraient de définir une « vie honnête » ? Quels moyens seraient utilisés pour évaluer une prétendue moralité individuelle ? Cette mesure, qui repose sur des évaluations profondément subjectives, ouvrirait la voie à la mise en place de deux systèmes normatifs parallèles. Des déclarations non pénalement répréhensibles pourraient ainsi entraîner l'expulsion des migrant·e·s, alors qu'elles n'auraient aucune conséquence juridique pour des citoyen·ne·s suédois·e·s. Par ailleurs, il existe un risque de produire un effet dissuasif sur la liberté d'expression et de renforcer l'autocensure parmi les personnes migrantes.

Le deuxième projet de loi s'inscrit dans une volonté plus générale, à l'échelle européenne, de renforcer un contrôle généralisé des espaces privés et publics afin de « débusquer » les personnes dépourvues de doit au séjour. Il accentuerait le rôle des administrations comme outils de contrôle, en menaçant le droit à la vie privée, en raison du partage potentiel de données sensibles, en favorisant le profilage racial et les discriminations au faciès, et en créant des conflits éthiques pour les professionnel·le·s de l'administration publique [20].

Royaume-Uni

The Guardian, « What are Shabana Mahmood's changes to the asylum system ? », le 5 mars 2026

Le 5 mars, la ministre de l'Intérieur britannique Shabana Mahmood a annoncé la mise en application de nouvelles mesures en matière de migration et d'asile. Le statut de réfugié est désormais réduit de cinq ans à 30 mois (renouvelables). Au terme de cette période, si le pays tiers est considéré comme sûr, ses ressortissant·e·s pourront y être expulsé·e·s. Par ailleurs, la période pour obtenir le statut de résident·e permanent·e passe de 10 à 20 ans, l'obligation de soutien financier public aux demandeur·euse·s d'asile est suspendue, et jusqu'à 40 000 £ seront offerts aux familles dont la demande d'asile a été rejetée pour rentrer volontairement dans leur pays : en cas de refus, les autorités pourront recourir à la force, y compris à l'encontre des mineur·e·s.

Énième durcissement de la politique migratoire britannique, cette nouvelle série de mesures répressives s'éloigne de l'esprit, sinon de la lettre, des conventions relatives aux droits humains dont le Royaume-Uni est signataire. Tout d'abord, les personnes exilées seront maintenues dans un état d'incertitude permanente, les empêchant de reconstruire leur vie et les exposant à une menace constante d'expulsion [21]. Par ailleurs, la possibilité de renvoyer de force des familles dont la demande d'asile a été ou sera rejetée risque d'entraîner une violation du droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, protégé par l'article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme, ainsi que du principe de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant, consacré par la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant et reconnu par tous les instruments européens de protection des droits humains. Enfin, le renvoi forcé des ressortissant·e·s de pays considérés comme sûrs pourrait constituer une forme de discrimination fondée sur la nationalité.

Plusieurs organisations de la société civile britannique ont dénoncé ces évolutions dans un communiqué commun. Elles appellent le gouvernement à suspendre la réduction de la durée du statut de réfugié en taxant la politique britannique de « cruauté performative », source d'instabilité, d'injustice et d'inefficacité [22].

Royaume-Uni/Nigeria

BBC, « UK agrees deal to ease migrant returns to Nigeria », le 19 mars 2026

Le 19 mars, le Royaume-Uni et le Nigeria ont conclu un arrangement visant à accélérer les expulsions de ressortissant·e·s nigérian·e·s dépourvu·e·s de droit au séjour, ou condamné·e·s par la justice ou encore dont la demande d'asile a été rejetée. Désormais, les autorités britanniques n'auront plus à attendre la délivrance de laissez-passer consulaires par le Nigeria pour procéder à une expulsion : les autorités nigérianes accepteront des documents d'identification émis par le Royaume-Uni (les « UK letters »). L'arrangement prévoit en outre un renforcement de la coopération dans la lutte contre les « réseaux de passeurs ». Dans ce sens, le Nigeria s'est engagé à revoir sa législation nationale afin de garantir des sanctions plus sévères contre « les infractions liées aux migrations », ce qui risque de conduire à une intensification de la criminalisation des personnes migrantes, ainsi que des organisations solidaires.

L'utilisation de documents informels comme les UK letters pourrait entraîner des expulsions arbitraires, du fait d'une identification unilatérale (identité et nationalité) de la personne renvoyée de force par le R.U. Cette mesure pourrait également porter atteinte au droit à la vie privée et familiale des Nigérian·e·s résidant·e·s au Royaume-Uni.

Cet accord marque une nouvelle étape dans la « diplomatie du renvoi » [23]engagée par le Royaume-Uni depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir du gouvernement de Keir Starmer. Déjà en septembre 2025, la ministre de l'Intérieur Shabana Mahmood avait mis en place une stratégie de suspension de la délivrance de visas pour les ressortissant·e·s de certains pays africains (République démocratique du Congo, Namibie, Angola) comme moyen de pression pour obtenir une coopération plus « efficace » de ces pays dans la réadmission des personnes expulsées [24].

Adoption du règlement retour

Libération, « Le Parlement européen approuve la création de « hubs de retour » pour migrants hors de l'UE », le 26 mars 2026

Le 26 mars 2026, le Parlement européen a confirmé en plénière le mandat de négociation adopté par la Commission Parlementaire LIBE pour un nouveau système commun en matière d'expulsions des ressortissant·e·s de pays tiers sans droit au séjour dans l'Union (dit « règlement retour »), résultant d'une alliance entre la droite et l'extrême droite. Parmi les mesures prévues : une détention systématique pour toutes les personnes exilées(extension des motifs de détention, durée maximale d'enfermement portée à 24 mois et cumulable d'un État membre à l'autre, possibilité d'enfermement dans des établissements pénitentiaires) ; des expulsions vers des pays tiers (return hubs), sans contrôle effectif par les institutions européennes et sans clause de suspension en cas de violation des droits ; une accélération des renvois forcés grâce à la reconnaissance mutuelle des mesures d'expulsion entre États membres, potentiellement sans réexamen individuel, et pouvant être exécutées avant toute décision définitive ; dans certains cas, des interdictions d'entrée définitives dans le territoire de l'UE sont prévues.

Énième jalon de la guerre aux migrant·e·s débutée il y a 30 ans, ce règlement consolide la destruction du droit entamée de longue date, en franchissant de nouvelles lignes rouges. Il risque d'entraîner très concrètement des renvois dangereux, des violations du droit à un recours effectif et du principe de non-refoulement, et d'exposer les exilé·e·s à des traitements inhumains et dégradants [25]. La rapidité de ce vote est en outre inquiétante, le texte proposé ayant été adopté par le Parlement européen à peine un an après la proposition de la Commission. Cela révèle que l'agenda de l'extrême droite s'impose désormais au sommet des institutions européennes : dans le sillage du Pacte européen, le règlement retour entérine un remodelage du droit de l'Union afin de l'adapter à une idéologie raciste, anti-migratoire et anti-démocratique [26].

Arrangement UE / Nigeria

Euobserver, « EU offers cash and defence deal as it links migrant returns pact with Nigeria », 23 mars 2026

Le Nigeria et l'Union européenne ont conclu un arrangement pour le renvoi des ressortissant·e·s nigérian·ne·s dépourvu·e·s de droit au séjour dans l'Union, en contrepartie d'un financement de 288 millions d'euros destiné à la digitalisation, à la modernisation du secteur de la santé et aux chaînes de valeur agricoles au Nigeria.

L'arrangement illustre la tendance européenne à lier la coopération en matière d'expulsions à des promesses d'avantages économiques et diplomatiques (approche « cash-for-migrants »), au détriment des droits fondamentaux des personnes exilées. Le Nigeria est en effet confronté à une insécurité croissante, à une forte inflation, à la violence de groupesarmés locaux, à des allégations de torture et à une exclusion profonde des jeunes, aggravée par un recul des libertés civiles et politiques. Dans ce contexte, les expulsions de ressortissant·e·s nigérian·e·s depuis l'UE pourraient exposer certaines personnes à des traitements inhumains et dégradants et à l'exclusion sociale, en raison de perspectives de réintégration limitées. Par ailleurs, des accords informels similaires dans la région du Sahel ont coïncidé avec des lois anti-migration sévères,une criminalisation de la société civile, et la militarisation des frontières, contribuant à la normalisation de la répression sous couvert de garantir la « stabilité » et l'« ordre » [27] à l'échelle nationale.

Frontex

Le Monde, « Fabrice Leggeri, ex-directeur de Frontex et eurodéputé RN, visé par une enquête pour complicité de crimes contre l'humanité », le 24 mars 2026

A la suite de la plainte d'ONG (Ligue des droits de l'Homme et Utopia 56) déposée en avril 2024, une enquête a été ouverte en France contre Fabrice Leggeri, ancien directeur de Frontex (2015-2022) et eurodéputé d'extrême droite (groupe Patriotes pour l'Europe). Il est accuséde complicité de crimes contre l'humanité et crime de torture, dans des faits de refoulements et de non-assistance aux exilé.e.s en mer, liés aux pratiques de dissuasion mises en œuvre par les États membres et son bras armé Frontex.

Si l'ouverture d'une enquête à l'encontre de Leggeri, qui siège au Parlement européen comme eurodéputé du Rassemblement National, constitue une étape symbolique importante, il convient de rappeler que le mandat et les activités de Frontex sont, depuis la création de l'agence, intrinsèquement incompatibles avec le respect des droits fondamentaux. Les violations des droits commises en toute impunité avec la complicité de Frontex - dénoncées depuis 2004 par les ONG - avaient lieu avant la nomination de Leggeri et se sont poursuivies après sa démission en 2022.

Frontex est l'instrument d'une politique répressive de restriction des mobilités qui a démontré être incompatible avec le respect des droits. Dans le cadre du mandat de l'agence, denombreuses opérations illégales ont été menées et largement documentées : expulsions collectives, entraves au droit d'asile, refoulements massifs en pleine mer, non-assistance à personne en danger, collaboration avec des milices libyennes pour intercepter des embarcations avant qu'elles n'atteignent les eaux territoriales européennes.

Depuis sa création en 2004, son mandat, ses prérogatives et ses moyens n'ont cessé d'être renforcés, et son budget a été démultiplié ces dernières années (passant de 6 millions d'euros en 2005 à plus d'un milliard en 2026). En juin 2026, la Commission européenne présentera au Parlement une 5e révision du mandat de l'agence, visant à élargir encore ses activités et moyens (recours accru aux technologies de surveillance, expulsions de pays tiers à pays tiers, passage de 10 000 à 30 000 agents).

Si Frontex jouissait jusqu'ici d'une impunité structurelle, la Cour de justice de l'UE a considéré en décembre 2025 que le droit de l'Union imposait à Frontex des obligations en matière de protection des droits fondamentaux [28]. Il était temps.

[1] Ces opérations visent à « empêcher physiquement les migrant·e·s de quitter le territoire de leur État d'origine ou d'un État de transit, ou à les renvoyer de force vers ce territoire, avant qu'ils ne puissent atteindre la juridiction de leur État de destination. Cela signifie que, contrairement au « pushback », qui est effectué lorsqu'une personne franchit effectivement la frontière, les « pullbacks » ont lieu avant cela ». « “Lethal Disregard” : Search and rescue and the protection of migrants in the central Mediterranean Sea », Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l'Homme,mai 2021.

[2] Voir à ce sujet InfoMigrants, « Méditerranée : l'UE va financer l'ouverture d'un centre de sauvetage dans l'est libyen pour intercepter les migrants en mer », 27 janvier 2026

[3] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop, « Actualités de l'Union européenne - décembre 2025/février 2026 », 4 mars 2026

[4] Voir notamment le communiqué de Mediterranea, « Ancora milioni di euro per la collaborazione con criminali di guerra in Libia} », 9 janvier 2026

[5] Voir notamment AP, « Migrant abuses continue in Libya. So does EU border training », 25 janvier 2022, et le rapportdu Conseil de l'Union européenne « Four monthly Libyan coast guard and navy monitoring report », août-novembre 2021

[6] Voir, par exemple, le dernier rapport de l'OHCHR et de l'UNSMIL « Business as Usual : Human Rights Violations and Abuses against Migrants, Asylum-Seekers, and Refugees in Libya », 17 février 2026

[7] Voir notamment le communiqué conjoint « Pour la libération de l'activiste Saadia Mosbah », 10 mars 2026

[8] Comme l'ont démontré les récents arrangements avec les Talibans en Afghanistan(2025) et avec la Turquie (2024), destinés à accélérer les expulsions de leurs ressortissant·e·s, les personnes afghanes et turques constituent une grande partie des populations exilées vivant en Allemagne.

[9] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop, Revue de presse décembre 2025, 5 janvier 2025

[10] Conseil des droits de l'homme des Nations Unies, « Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic » 12 mars 2026

[11] Cour constitutionnelle,arrêt n° 23/2026, 26 février 2026

[12] Voir à ce sujet Amnesty International « Belgique. Les manquements persistants en matière d'accueil bafouent les droits et la dignité des personnes en quête d'asile », 3 avril 2025

[13] Voir la lettre ouvertesignée par les chefs d'État de l'Italie, du Danemark, de l'Autriche, de la Belgique, de la République tchèque, de l'Estonie, de la Lettonie, de la Lituanie et de la Pologne, 22 mai 2025

[14] Voir à ce sujet le rapport de Border Violence Monitoring Network, « Clothes in the river, backpacks on fire : The (in)visibility of pushbacks at the Croatian-Bosnian border », 11 juin 2024

[15] Voir notamment Asylum Information Database (AIDA),Conseil européen pour les personnes réfugiées et exilées (ECRE), « Conditions in reception facilities : Croatia », dernière mise à jour le 20 janvier

[16] Voir l'aperçu générale de la Croatie du Global Detention Project, s.d.

[17] Voirla décision (UE) 2025/1348 du Conseil, 27 janvier 2025

[18] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop,Revue de presse juin 2025, 7 juillet 2025

[19] Voir à ce sujet : Human Rights Watch, « Mauritanie : Des années d'abus liés aux contrôles des migrations », 27 août 2025 ; ASGI « Morocco : Border policies at the root of forced disappearances and human rights violations », 14 avril 2025

[20] Les mêmes inquiétudes ont été soulevées concernant le règlement « retour », adopté le 26 mars par le Parlement européen. Voir à ce sujet le communiqué conjoint « Règlement retour : non à une loi européenne qui autorise les perquisitions à domicile, la police dans les services publics et le profilage racial », 23 février 2026

[21] Voir à ce sujet The Guardian, « Mahmood's new rules will leave refugees in cruel state of uncertainty », 8 mars 2026

[22] Voir notamment Scottish Refugee Council, « Charities urge UK government to ‘step up' and be honest about realities of migration », 5 mars 2026

[23] Voir notamment Migreurop,Revue de presse octobre 2025, 15 novembre 2025

[24] Voir à ce sujet InfoMigrants, « UK uses visa restrictions to pressure African countries on deportation deals », 30 décembre 2025

[25] Voir notamment le communiqué de Migreurop, « Adoption du règlement européen « retour » : la mise à mort du droit international », 26 mars 2026

[26] Ibidem

[27] Notamment le partenariat UE-Niger de 2022

[28] Voir à ce sujet Migreurop, Revue de presse décembre 2025, 5 janvier 2026

Adoption of the EU ‘Return' Regulation: the death of international law

Camille — 2026-03-26T13:51:17Z

ℹ️Read the summary of the analysis here.

On 26 March 2026, following on from the recent rights-violating legislative reforms (the European Pact on Migration and Asylum, the Schengen Code reform, the redefinition of the concept of ‘safe countries'...), MEPs approved a new instrument that effectively annihilates the rights of migrant people and continues to dismantle EU law, and, by extension, international law.

In the blink of an eye, the hard-right's repressive agenda has prevailed. And what little rights remained have been shattered. In a historic acceleration, the far right has, in barely a year, pushed through a new common system for the expulsion of third-country nationals without the right to reside in the EU (known as the ‘Return Regulation'), repealing the 2008 Return Directive. Another milestone in the war on migrants that began 30 years ago, this Return Regulation consolidates the long-standing erosion of rights by crossing new red lines regarding the rights of foreigners. This new text, which leaves Member States considerable leeway, will undoubtedly lead to further violence against migrant people: increased criminalisation, widespread detention in camps, externalisation on all fronts, heightened risks to their physical and mental integrity,the institutionalised dismantling of rights.

This regulation clearly aims to take the ‘Europeanisation of the worst' [1] a step further by giving substance to the ambitions of those states most opposed to migration, and by exacerbating or creating new violations of rights on a transnational scale. Above all, it illustrates Europe's anti-migration obsession and the embrace of far-right ideas that are infecting both the public sphere and the institutions of the Union.

A tightening of European migration policies under the influence of the far right

The Return Regulation, which will be binding on Member States, follows on from the European Pact on Migration and Asylum [2] – which establishes common rules for the cut-price management of immigration and asylum and already opened the door to widespread rights violations (obstacles to the right to an effective remedy and legal assistance, brutal detention practices that are increasingly informal and precarious, and a new procedure for border returns). Thus, this regulation aims, on the one hand, to fill the ‘gaps' in the Pact by ‘simplifying, facilitating and accelerating' the procedures for deporting people who don't benefit from the right to reside within the Union. On the other hand, it aims to satisfy the demands of the European far right, which was calling for even harsher standards towards migrants. The position of the Council of the EU (8 December 2025) had already toughened the Commission's initial text (11 March 2025). The alternative compromise adopted by the LIBE Committee on 9 March – and for which the negotiating mandate was confirmed by the European Parliament's plenary session on 26 March – is even more repressive, resulting from an alliance between the right and the far right, struck after several weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations.

An obsession with security at the expense of fundamental rights

Following on from the numerous, well-documented violations of rights [3] resulting from the 2008 ‘directive of shame' – and the normalisation of violence against people on the move, which has for years been employed as a deterrent strategy [4] – this text unashamedly contributes to the erosion of the rights and freedoms of foreign nationals. Whilst claiming – but only for appearances' sake – to act with “full respect” for them, even though no impact assessment preceded this regulation, as required by current European legislation.

The language used in this text reveals nothing but hostility and mistrust towards those without the right to reside in the Union, who must be got rid of in the name of ‘taking control' and ‘effectiveness' in the fight against so-called irregular immigration.

Emphasis is placed on the need to guarantee “territorial integrity, the maintenance of public order and the safeguarding of national security” within the Union [5] . The grounds for a “security risk” are no longer limited to serious crimes but have been extended to criminal offences punishable by at least two years' imprisonment, or to any threat to security under national law. For migrants allegedly posing this “risk”, exceptions to the (strict) general rules are introduced (entry bans and longer detention periods, specialised detention centres). Whilst measures aimed at detecting and surveilling people without the right to reside in the Union have ultimately been removed from the latest version of the text, their inclusion in a recital leaves the door open for the Council to reintroduce intrusive investigative methods to track them down. Furthermore, there are numerous provisions that directly undermine fundamental rights.

Systematic mass detention

Under previous legislation, the detention of foreign nationals was to be a measure of last resort. The new regulation no longer bothers with such considerations (except for unaccompanied minors – at least in theory), and detention becomes de facto systematic with an expansion of the grounds for detention [6] .

This, whether formal or disguised (e.g. the use of electronic tagging), may apply to all categories of foreign nationals, including those deemed ‘vulnerable': minors (unaccompanied or accompanied), asylum seekers, and people whose state of health is, in principle, incompatible with detention.

Furthermore, the maximum period of detention is increased from 18 to 24 months (2 x 12 months) ‘in a given Member State ” (Art. 32-3) – meaning that detention periods can be cumulative across Member States – and can be extended indefinitely in the event of threats to “public order”, public or internal “security”, or in the event of an offence. However, European courts have consistently held that administrative detention must be exceptional and proportionate. It should also be noted that in the event of a ‘security risk', the text provides for the legal possibility that such administrative detention may take place in prisons, in designated sections, or alongside common law prisoners.

It is clear here that the systematic detention of migrants – in camps or prisons, including in cases of non-cooperation with the authorities – is punitive and criminalising. This is despite the fact that they are deprived of their liberty because they do not meet the requirements for entry into or residence in a European country, and that Member States have obligations to respect rights under ratified international conventions. Finally, the criminalisation of migrants leads to recurrent violations of their fundamental rights and fuels racism in both migration policies and among the general public.

Deporting faster and further

This new text demonstrates the EU's determination to allow deportation at any cost and to prevent foreign nationals deemed ‘undesirable' from setting foot on European soil, once and for all.

A person subject to a removal procedure will be required to actively cooperate with the authorities regarding their forced return, failing which they may face sanctions, particularly financial or criminal penalties (including imprisonment). They may also be subject to a search and have their personal belongings seized (including electronic devices), which may infringe upon the rights of asylum seekers, the right to privacy and the protection of personal data.

The aim is to speed up forced removals through the mutual recognition and enforcement of removal decisions between Member States, potentially without individual review of cases between the country that issued the expulsion order and the one enforcing it, which risks undermining the principle of non-refoulement. Furthermore, it will now be possible to deport a person without waiting for the final removal decision, as the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal against that decision has been removed, which may undermine the right to an effective remedy.

Under the pretext of circumventing the alleged lack of cooperation from countries of origin or transit – which could lead to sanctions – or the practical impossibility of returning a person, the new European legislation also broadens the definition of ‘country of return'. This provides for the possibility of deporting migrant people to third countries they have never set foot in – with the notable exception of unaccompanied minors (Art. 17-4) – with which they have no connection (nationality, transit or residence), and without their consent, as this requirement has simply been removed from the new text. To this end, Member States or the EU will be able to negotiate agreements (formal or informal) with countries outside Europe (return hubs), and will simply be required to inform the European Commission. It will be up to these third countries to ‘manage' the populations returned from Europe (detention, deportations?), without any provision for a mechanism for ex ante or ex post monitoring of these deportations by the European institutions, and without a suspension clause in the event of rights violations. This text also permits the sharing of data with third countries, including data relating to criminal convictions.

Member States are thus completely absolving themselves of the consequences and repercussions of these deportations, in breach of the principle of Member States' extraterritorial responsibility in cases of dangerous return [7] . Furthermore, if the country of return cannot be determined, it will be possible to issue a deportation order that specifies none… or to designate several, which in both cases will hinder the ability to challenge these decisions. Furthermore, there is no need to declare the third country of return ‘safe', except for asylum seekers whose applications have been deemed inadmissible.

Finally, bans on re-entry into the European Union following deportation may be imposed even before a removal order has been issued, or even after the person has left the territory. The maximum duration of this ban (previously five years) – initially extended to 10, then 20 years – is ultimately not specified in the latest version of the text [8] , except for persons who would pose a security risk, in which case the ban may be indefinite (i.e. permanent). To add insult to injury, ‘Member States may make the lifting of an entry ban conditional upon the reimbursement of the costs incurred in removing the third-country national' (Art. 11-3).

Declaring third countries ‘safe'

To carry out their anti-migration policies and shirk their responsibilities regarding reception and international protection, European states have relied for over 20 years on the concept of ‘safe countries'. This label, intended to be effective and in theory conditional upon respect for the rule of law and effective protection in situ, conveniently designates strategic geographical areas as safe. As provided for in the European Pact, this concept has been reformed. On 10 February 2026, the European Parliament thus adopted two texts that drastically limit the scope of the right to asylum.

The first text establishes the first common and harmonised European list of ‘safe countries of origin', comprising Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco, Kosovo, Colombia, Egypt and India – a list that is staggering given the abuses against migrants reported in these countries [9] .

Furthermore, all countries applying for EU membership are automatically considered ‘safe' (with the exception of Ukraine). This initial concept allows Member States to examine applications for protection under an accelerated procedure when they come from nationals of a so-called “safe country of origin”, in violation of the right to an effective remedy and respect for the rights of the defence. Furthermore, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has pointed out, the application of the safe country of origin concept would, in principle, prevent an entire group of asylum seekers from obtaining refugee status, which would contravene the Geneva Convention [10] , as well as being contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The European Pact on Asylum and Migration also provides that a country may be considered partially ‘safe' and that the accelerated procedure may also apply to foreign nationals from countries where the rate of acceptance of asylum applications in the European Member State of arrival is less than 20%.

The second text broadens the concept of ‘safe third countries', but without providing a list. This allows an asylum application to be declared inadmissible without substantive examination for persons who have passed through a ‘safe third country', on the grounds that the person could have sought asylum there, with a view to returning them there. However, automatically classifying a country as ‘safe' may lead to a person being returned without a thorough examination of their individual circumstances, which would undermine the principle of non-refoulement, and without the appeal having suspensive effect, in violation of the right to an effective remedy.

Legalising existing outsourcing practices

The EU and European countries have for years sought to outsource their responsibilities regarding migration and asylum management [11]. By first delegating border controls and maritime interceptions (Morocco, Libya, Turkey, Tunisia, ...), then seeking to delegate detention and/or asylum processing (Rwanda, Albania, the 2025 letter of intent between the Netherlands and Uganda aimed at creating a ‘return centre' for rejected asylum seekers), and finally by outsourcing deportations (Tirana/Cairo deportation, May 2025 [12] ).

On the other hand, the externalisation of asylum is more favored than ever by MEPs. Whilst the most recent initiatives in this direction (the UK–Rwanda deal of 2022 and the Italy–Albania deal of 2023) have failed, having been struck down by national and European courts, on 15 May 2024, 15 Member States sent a letter to the European Commission calling for the development of a common system for the externalisation of asylum processing, drawing inspiration in particular from the Italy-Albania protocol, and pushing for the establishment of ‘return hubs' in ‘safe third countries' to which those being returned could be ‘transferred'. For its part, the European Commission has, contrary to common sense and international law, described the relocation of asylum procedures to third countries as an “innovative solution” [13] .

Finally, building on discussions surrounding the Return Regulation, five EU member states (Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Greece) wasted no time in seizing the opportunity. Forming a coalition, they met on 5 March 2026 with a view to ‘concretely implementing' externalised camps outside the EU to which people deported from Europe would be sent [14] . They are now working to negotiate formal or informal agreements to this effect with non-EU countries.

Unprecedented attacks on the rule of law

On 22 May 2025, nine EU Member States (Italy, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) signed an open letter calling for “a new and open-minded discussion on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights”. The signatory states criticise the European Court of Human Rights' overly broad interpretation of the Convention in relation to immigration, particularly regarding the prohibition on subjecting a person within their jurisdiction to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 3) —a prohibition which is, however, absolute and admits of no exceptions [15] — or the protection of private and family life (Art. 8). Through this frontal assault on the judiciary, these states are in reality demanding greater flexibility to depart from basic safeguards in immigration law…

The legislative initiatives of recent months reflect the Member States' clear desire to free themselves from European law as it currently stands, which for the time being acts as a barrier – at least in theory – to the violation of their international obligations, the aim being to establish a new legal framework that would allow them to shirk their responsibilities in the field of migration without difficulty.

There remains the hope that these attempts to undermine rights will be challenged during the trilogue negotiations and/or, ultimately, by the European courts…

Whilst EU law is supposed to protect individual rights and safeguard freedoms, for decades it has been trampling on them in the name of a fabricated ‘migration threat'. In the wake of the European Pact and other forthcoming reforms (renegotiation of the Facilitation Directive, amendment to the Frontex Regulation), new red lines have been crossed, and the Return Regulation confirms the reshaping of EU law to adapt it to the racist, anti-migration and anti-democratic ideology that prevails across Europe and far beyond.

This overt policy of mass detention and externalisation confirms – if confirmation were still needed – the foundation of the policy of deterrence, coercion and criminalisation within the EU, against which Migreurop has been fighting for 20 years. More than ever, the network and its members reaffirm their commitment to upholding the rights of migrant people and opposing this narrative of hatred. Migreurop will continue to work towards broadening the collective imagination to conceive of alternative migration policies that are radically different, resolutely inclusive, based on solidarity and decolonial principles, centred on freedom of movement and settlement for all, and focused on the strict respect for rights.

[1] “European Pact on Asylum and Migration: Migreurop's Position and Legal Analysis”, Migreurop Position Paper, 5 December 2022

[2] Adopted in April 2024, the European Pact on Asylum and Migration will come into force in June 2026

[3] “The ‘Open Access Now' campaign gives way to the ‘Close the Camps' campaign”, Migreurop, 23 May 2016

[4] “Controlling” migration: between letting people die and a licence to kill”, Migreurop press release, 27 October 2023

[5] https://static.euobserver.com/2026/03/EUobserver-Return-Regulation_Alternative-Compromise-Amendment-Copy-1.pdf

[6] The grounds for detention are extended to include the risk of absconding, obstruction of the removal procedure, “security risks”, the need to determine or verify identity and nationality, or failure to comply with so-called alternatives to detention, including a lack of cooperation in obtaining travel documents, or any other relevant factor indicating that detention is necessary to ensure a swift and effective return

[7] cf. Art. 3 European Convention on Human Rights

[8] Recital 20: ‘The duration of an entry ban must be determined with due regard to all the relevant circumstances of the individual case'

[9] In particular, inEgypt, Morocco and Tunisia

[10] General Note on the Concept of Country and Refugee Status, EC/SCP/68, UNHCR, 26 July 1991

[11] “The externalisation of the European Union's immigration and asylum policies”, Migreurop advocacy note,1sthalfof 2019

[12] “The Italian government's first repatriation operation directly from Albania”, Altreeconomia, 23 June 2025

[13] Ursula von der Leyen described the Italy-Albania protocol as “thinking outside the box” (in “Relocating migrants outside the EU: the European Commission in favour of return centres”, Euronews, 15 October 2024)

[14] “Five EU countries want to create return hubs for migrantsoutside Europe”, Euronews, 6 March 2026

[15] ECHR, Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment}], 1989