MEDITERRANEAN: Confusion regarding future of Italian migration centres in Albania ― ECtHR criticises Malta’s regime again ― Asylum seekers still trapped in Cyprus buffer zone ― Cyprus President calls for normalisation of relations with Syria ― NGOs cal…

• A decision by the Civil Court of Rome has led to uncertainty regarding the future of the recently opened Italian migration centres in Albania.
• The European Court of Human Rights has again criticised Malta’s treatment of vulnerable children and lack of effective remedies.
• A group of 60 people remain trapped in the buffer zone that divides Cyprus.
• Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has called for a normalisation of relations with Syria.
• A trio of NGOs has called on the Greek government to reform its registration system for people seeking asylum in the country.

A decision by the Civil Court of Rome has led to uncertainty regarding the future of the recently opened Italian migration centres in Albania. In an op-ed published on 24 October, Andreina De Leo from ECRE member organisation the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI) has set out the latest developments in the implementation of the controversial Italy-Albania Protocol, including the Civil Court of Rome’s decision on 18 October to block the detention of the 12 people who had been transferred to Albania a few days earlier, and the adoption of a decree-law on 21 October to enable the Italian government to overrule it.

Following the court ruling, the Democratic Party, the Five Star Movement and the League of the Greens and the Left jointly asked the European Commission if it was planning to launch infringement proceedings against government over the deal. In an X post, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the opposition parties’ move as “scandalous and irresponsible behavior”. In a statement and numerous Facebook posts, Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party accused the judiciary of being “politicised”, of trying to “oppose this government” and of wanting to “abolish the borders of Italy”. In an interview with the Repubblica newspaper, Minister of Justice Carlo Nordio said: “The definition of a safe country cannot be left to the judiciary; it is a political decision, albeit within the framework of international law”. Meanwhile, Angela Arbore from the Central Executive Council of the Italian National Association of Magistrates (ANM) described the attacks as “not just a threat to the judiciary, but to society as a whole”. The ongoing spat follows a recent report from the Council of Europe’s European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance which found that Italian political discourse on migration was creating “severe obstacles to the effective integration and inclusion of migrants” and undermining both “the activities of nongovernmental organisations that provide support to migrants” and “the independence of the judiciary when dealing with immigration cases”.

A number of NGOs used the occasion of the court ruling and the adoption of the decree-law to restate their concerns about the Italy-Albania Protocol. “Outsourcing [migration] is paying someone so that people’s rights are violated outside your country,” said the founder and director of the Spanish NGO Open Arms, Óscar Camps. In a press release, ASGI stated thatthe Italian government, despite being aware of its obligations, had “nevertheless brazenly wanted to violate European law” in what the organisation called a “very dangerous game that must be denounced and stopped without hesitation”. Describing the decree-law as “symbolic”, the deputy public prosecutor of Reggio Calabria and national secretary of the Democratic Magistrates (MD) association, Stefano Musolino, said: “There is always another law – European law – that is supranational and takes precedence over national legislation”. For her part, Judith Sunderland from Human Rights Watch said: “At a time when EU leaders seem intent on twisting rules, common sense, and the bloc’s founding values, it’s heartening to see Italian judges uphold the rule of law”.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has again criticised Malta’s treatment of vulnerable children and lack of effective remedies. On 22 October, ECtHR ruled in case of J.B. and Others v. Malta which concerned the situation of six Bangladeshi people who claimed to be minors, five of whom were deemed to have been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment due to the cumulative conditions of their detention. All six applicants received financial compensation (€ 9,000 for the first applicant € and 15,000 for the others). They were assisted and represented by ECRE member organisation the aditus Foundation in co-operation with fellow ECRE member organisation Jesuit Refugee Service Malta with support from the Advancing Child Rights Strategic Litigation project  and the United Nations Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) Malta office. The ECtHR found that Malta’s constitutional proceedings were not effective remedies and upheld the aditus Foundation’s arguments that the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) needed a “radical revisiting”. In its submissions, the foundation argued that the IAB was “generally composed of political appointees who lack the necessary technical expertise”. “We won!! So proud of our amazing clients … just kids who told Malta that this must stop!” the organisation X posted following the judgment. In a press statement in which it described the judgment as a “huge victory” for the applicants, the aditus Foundation also wrote: “They are children who decided to take on an EU Member State’s migration policies. They chose to stand up to injustice. As we stood with them throughout these difficult procedures, we continue to stand with others who remain locked up”. “There are alternatives,” it added, referring to its ongoing campaign against administrative detention.

As of 20 October, 60 people remained trapped in Cyprus’ buffer zone. Commenting on the situation, UNHCR spokesperson Emilia Strovolidou described the limbo in which the people continue to find themselves after several months. In addition to not being able to enter the Republic of Cyprus (south of the buffer zone) they cannot be sent back into the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as there is “no asylum mechanism in the north”. She added that, if they did return to the north, their previous crossing to the south would be considered “trespassing in the buffer zone” and could result in criminal prosecution and deportation back to their home countries “without assessing their international protection needs”.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has called for a normalisation of relations with Syria. In an interview with Euronews in advance of the European Council meeting on 17 October, Christodoulides clarified that he was “not talking about the Assad regime” but that EU leaders should not be prevented from “discussing the possibility of Syrians returning to their country”. He also said that he was prepared to discuss other possible solutions, including “return hubs”. “We are ready to look at all options outside the box,” he said, stressing that such options should be “in line with international humanitarian law”. He added that the UNHCR should be “with” his government to ensure that what is being done is “within the box and always within the framework of international legitimacy”.

Finally, a trio of NGOs has called on the Greek government to reform its registration system for people seeking asylum in the country. In a joint statement issued on 24 October, Equal Rights Beyond Borders, Mobile Info Team, and Refugee Legal Support condemned the current system as “dysfunctional” and responsible for unlawfully detaining of people seeking asylum and denying them access to their fundamental rights.

Related articles