Aller à la navigation Aller au contenu

Press Review March 2026

 Libya

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.