Aller à la navigation Aller au contenu

Press review April 2026

 Tunisia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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