Mediaboss Marketing

President Mattarella accused the European Union and its member states of taking a "non-suitable" approach to addressing the increasing arrivals of migrants from African coasts to Italian seaports.

Speaking to the annual Ambassadors Conference held at the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mattarella reprimanded European colleagues for the "borderline quips" he received in response to a continued plea for help in managing the migrant crisis that has overtaken Italian coasts over the past few years.

"We want a serious and responsible discussion with everyone. There's no time for offhand jokes or borderline quips."

Farnesina/Getty

"Those are not suited to international dialogue and confrontation. In this context, your [the Ambassadors] efforts in Brussels, in the European capitals, in the Mediterranean and African ones, are essentials."

Mattarella's remarks come following a report from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) revealed that 111,514 migrants arrived in Europe since January 2017, 85% of whom were registered in Italy.

The report also revealed that nearly 2,360 people attempted to cross the Mediterranean sea but ultimately failed.

The Italian President suggested the solution could be found through the "stabilisation of crisis areas" such as Libya.

"The stabilisation of crisis areas, Libya first of all, require a reaction that transcends the abilities of single countries or the willingness of international partnerships."

Mattarella said that Italy has taken the burden of the crisis "because of its sensitivity, tradition and culture" and will continue in its effort to facilitate the integrations and the asylum-seeking process of those migrants who decide to settle in Italy.

European Commission Jean-Clause Juncker wrote to President Mattarella to let him know the European Union is ready to "mobilise 100m" (89.2m) should "Italy's government feel it necessary" to deal with the migrant crisis.

See original here:
WATCH: Italian President blasts EU for laughing and joking while his country is in CRISIS - Express.co.uk

BBC News

EU migrant crisis: Austria can deport asylum seekers, court says BBC News The case, brought by Austria and Slovenia, could affect the future of several hundred people who arrived during the migrant crisis of 2015-16. The ruling concerns two Afghan families and a Syrian who applied for asylum after leaving Croatia. The court ... and more »

Go here to read the rest:
EU migrant crisis: Austria can deport asylum seekers, court says - BBC News

Complaints from Slovakia and Hungary were thrown out by the Advocate General who said the scheme was 'appropriate'

A EURO judge has ruled eastern European nations should be forced to accept refugees under a controversial Brussels migrant crisis plan.

Complaints from Slovakia and Hungary were thrown out by Advocate General Yves Bot, who said the scheme was appropriate.

EPA

And he blamed the two countries for the partial or total failure in the fair sharing of burdens in the crisis.

Commission President Jean Claude Juncker two years ago urged member states to lift the burden on Greece and Italy by divvying up and resettling their share of 160,000 refugees and migrants.

New figures revealed so far just 24,700 have been moved from Greece and Italy under the plan.

The slow progress triggered a move by Brussels for mandatory quotas across member states.

In March Hungarys hard line PM Viktor Orban labelled Europes refugee policy a Trojan Horse of Terrorism. Poland has also refused to take a single asylum seeker under the plan.

Speaking today EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos said: If these member states decide to change position, we are ready to work with them to address their concerns.

We dont want to go on like this.

See the rest here:
Euro judge rules eastern European nations should be forced to accept refugees under controversial EU migrant crisis ... - The Sun

GETTY

The ECJ advocate general today sensationally advised judges to reject a legal claim by Hungary and Slovakia that they should not be forced to take in refugees from Greece and Italy.

Yves Bot said the migrant quota scheme was a proportionate means of alleviating pressure on frontline member states and said it had only failed because Eastern Europe had refused to take part.

Hungarys firebrand prime minister Viktor Orban has made challenging the EUs migration scheme a frontline political issue, characterising it as a fight for the future of Europes Christian values.

But many other member states have been alarmed by his hardline approach and most have thrown their weight firmly behind Brussels in urging euro judges to force Budapest to comply.

A legal opinion by the advocate general is not binding and can be ignored by ECJ judges when they make their ruling, but more often than not they do accept his recommendations.

In his assessment of the case published today, which will raise some eyebrows due to its highly political nature, Mr Bot describes the migrant quota scheme as proportionate and justified.

GETTY

Hungarian and Slovakian objections - that there were legal irregularities in its adoption, that it should have required a unanimous EU Council decision and that borders are a national competence - should be dismissed.

The opinion is likely to provoke a furious response from those nations opposed to the quota scheme who have argued, amongst other things, that letting in refugees presents a security threat.

The programme was adopted in 2015 following a majority vote of the EU Council, with member states agreeing to regime 120,000 migrants from Greece and Italy amid fierce Eastern European objections.

But it has been dogged by inefficiency ever since with many member states effectively refusing to take part and just one - tiny Malta - fulfilling its set quota.

Hungary and Slovakia launched a legal case against the entire thing earlier this year and were supported by Poland, whilst Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Sweden lined up on the other side.

In his opinion published today, French official Mr Bot unequivocally state that judges at the ECJ should dismiss the actions brought by Slovakia and Hungary when they come before them later this year.

He rejected claims by Hungary and Slovakia that the quota scheme should have been put to national parliaments, and not just decided by EU leaders, and that MEPs should have been handed a greater role in shaping it.

And the magistrate said the fact that the fact the decision was not adopted unanimously did not invalidate it, because the Commission did not object to amendments leaders had made to the initial proposal.

Mr Bot wrote: The contested decision automatically helps to relieve the considerable pressure on the asylum systems of Italy and Greece following the migration crisis in the summer of 2015 and that it is thus appropriate for attaining the objective which it pursues.

The limited efficacy can be explained by a series of factors including the partial or total failure of certain Member States (including Slovakia and Hungary) to implement the contested decision, which is contrary to the obligation concerning solidarity and the fair sharing of burdens, to which the Member States are subject in the area of asylum policy.

Getty Images

1 of 11

Refugees and migrants wait in a small rubber boat to be rescued off Lampedusa, Italy

He said that the EU Council had permission to adopt a provisional measure for the mandatory distribution between Member States of persons in need of international protection that could not be blocked by individual states.

And Mr Bot added: Such a measure therefore cannot be regarded as manifestly exceeding what is necessary to provide an effective response to the migration crisis.

If ECJ judges agree with his assessment, it will further bloody the battleground over migration which is already the scene of a brutal political dogfight between Eastern Europe and the West.

The EU Commission has recently launched infringement proceedings against Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland for refusing to take in a single refugee under the scheme, drawing a furious response from their leaders.

Read this article:
EU's top court rules FOR Austria but throws out Hungary & Slovakia claim on migrant quotas - Express.co.uk

In an eagerly awaited ruling judges at the ECJ confirmed that Austria and Slovenia can send migrants back to Croatia to have their asylum cases determined there instead.

The case came before the court after Croatian authorities infuriated their neighbours at the height of the 2015 crisis by laying on state-funded transport to help migrants cross their territory.

GETTY

Officials in Zagreb had argued that they were dealing with an unprecedented situation as hundreds of thousands of migrants moved northwards towards Germany, and that this exempted them from the need to process visas.

But Austria and Slovenia, where some of the asylum seekers ended up, brought legal proceedings saying that Croatia had a duty to decide on asylum cases, and not simply bus people northwards, under the Dublin Convention.

GETTY

The landmark EU migration law, first agreed in 1990, specifically states that it is the responsibility of the first EU member state a migrant enters to determine their case.

Todays ruling could have a significant impact on the future of the EUs rapidly sinking migrant quota scheme, under which all countries have been allocated a mandatory number of refugees to take in from Greece and Italy.

Both of the countries bringing the lawsuit have strongly opposed the enforced system and refused to take part, drawing a furious response from Rome which is struggling to cope with huge numbers of new arrivals.

And whilst today's case was focussed on Croatia, the ruling theoretically strips Italy and Greece of similar legal arguments against having to take migrants back under the Dublin system.

The specifics of the case focus on one Syrian national, who applied for asylum in Slovenia, and two Afghan family members who travelled to Austria - all after being helped to transit through Croatia.

In both instances the two countries national courts ruled that the trio should be returned to Croatia to apply for asylum there - prompting a legal challenge from the individuals which ended up at the ECJ.

The crossing of a border in breach of the conditions imposed by the rules must necessarily be considered irregular

ECJ ruling

They argued that their entry into Croatia in 2015 could not be considered irregular - in other words illegal - because the national authorities knew they were there and provided them with onwards transport.

The trio tried to claim that this was in a legal sense tantamount to the Croatian government giving them a visa - but in its ruling today the ECJ judges struck that argument down.

They concluded: The admission of a national from a non-EU country to the territory of a Member State is not tantamount to the issuing of a visa, even if the admission is explained by exceptional circumstances characterised by a mass influx of displaced people into the EU.

The crossing of a border in breach of the conditions imposed by the rules applicable in the Member State concerned must necessarily be considered irregular.

A Member State which has decided on humanitarian grounds to authorise the entry on its territory of a non-EU national who does not have a visa and is not entitled to waiver of a visa cannot be absolved of that responsibility [to process their asylum claim].

The court ruled that the fact Croatia was facing an influx of so many people was not decisive and that allowing people to enter its territory on humanitarian grounds was its decision, so that such authorisation is valid only in respect of the territory of the Member State concerned, not the territory of the other Member States.

Getty Images

1 of 11

Refugees and migrants wait in a small rubber boat to be rescued off Lampedusa, Italy

It concluded: The Court finds that the term irregular crossing of a border also covers the situation in which a Member State admits into its territory non-EU nationals on humanitarian grounds, by way of derogation from the entry conditions generally imposed on non-EU nationals.

In their conclusions the judges stressed that they were not ruling out a voluntary scheme of relocation, such as the migrant quota scheme, because member states can always choose to carry out asylum checks even if not legally required to do so.

And in a final note, likely to be interpreted as a fig leaf to Italy and Greece, they warn that no EU member state can deport an asylum seeker to their point of first entry if that country is under too much pressure to offer proper care and accommodation.

They state: An applicant for international protection must not be transferred to the Member State responsible if, following the arrival of an unusually large number of non-EU nationals seeking international protection, there is a genuine risk that the person concerned may suffer inhuman or degrading treatment if transferred.

Visit link:
HAMMER BLOW FOR EU: Victory for Austria as Euro court in shock migrant ruling - Express.co.uk