Eu Turkey 18 March Agreement

8 12 2020

17. Do you see, for example, Narin Idriz, the EU-Turkey Declaration or the “Refugee Agreement”: the extrajudicial agreement of exceptional periods? in: Dina Siegel und Veronika Nagy (note), The Migration Crisis? Criminalization, Security and Survival (Eleven Publishing); T.M.C. Asser Institute for International – European Law, Research Paper 2017-06; Steve Peers, “The draft EU-Turkey agreement on migration and refugees: is it legal?”, eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-draft-euturkey-deal-on-migration.html; Maarten den Heijer/Thomas Spijkerboer, Is the EU-Turkey Treaty on Refugees and Migration a Treaty?, eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-eu-turkey-refugee-and-migr… (Access: March 17, 2019). As part of the agreement, Syrian refugees are exchanged between Turkey and EU countries. The agreement provides for the EU to send back to Turkey all Syrians who arrived illegally on the Greek islands after 20 March 2016. In exchange, legal Syrian refugees are admitted to the EU. As part of the agreement, 6 billion euros in financial aid was promised to Turkey, which was to be used by the Turkish government to finance projects for Syrian refugees. According to the European Commission, 3 billion euros have already been paid to Turkey to cover the cost of education for half a million Syrian children. On 20 March 2016, a formal agreement between the EU and Turkey to deal with the migration crisis came into force. The agreement is expected to limit the influx of irregular migrants entering the EU via Turkey. A key aspect of the agreement is the return to Ankara, the Turkish capital, of irregular migrants, who are found to have entered the EU via Turkey without having already been the subject of a formal asylum application procedure. Those who have bypassed the asylum procedure in Turkey would be returned and placed at the end of the application line.

The CONTROVERSIAL EU refugee deal with Turkey has been under way for two years. But there are still some problems, but the question of funding, in particular, is not yet fully resolved. Persistent controversies over the adoption of the EU-Turkey Declaration over the next three years have mainly focused on the following concerns: the implementation of the declaration would hinder asylum seekers` access to protection; this would result in returns; and that, because of its geographical limitation to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its practices, Turkey cannot be considered a safe third country, within the meaning of the definition set out in EU law. (16) As these concerns may constitute a violation of international human rights law and/or UNION legislation, several scientists have also been called upon to question the legal validity of the declaration. The EU-Turkey Declaration, which did not include the essential formal requirements of an international treaty while giving a contradictory impression on the substance, raised a number of questions about its binding effect. In addition, the form and content of the EU-Turkey declaration has caused controversy not only in terms of international law, but also from the point of view of EU law. (18) When the EU-Turkey declaration was published in a press release published on the EU summit website, it was presented in response to the increase in EU migration flows. The content of the statement illustrates this fact. However, the Tribunal`s order in early 2017 in the case of “NF, NG and NM/European Council” paints a completely different picture. (19) The case is brought following a request from two Pakistani nationals and an Afghan national who travelled from Turkey to Greece.


Actions

Information