By Humra Laeeq

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the right of the European member states to deport refugees to the state they first set foot in. The ruling is a reinforcement of the Dublin Regulation signed in 1990 in Ireland.

The decision was issued in favour of Austria and Slovenia that deported their refugees to Croatia: the Afghan Jafari sisters and a Syrian man respectively. The asylum seekers had argued that the Dublin Regulation should have been suspended with the 2015 migration crisis – an ‘exceptional’ case where one million refugees entered Europe. Critics see this as an unfair imposition on border countries like Italy and Greece, which usually receive incoming refugees.

A refugee crisis like never before

The 2015 influx of refugees—a bottleneck situation—has been creating trouble for other EU nations. As a result of the Middle-East Asian crisis, Europe had been welcoming refugees, but, at a controllable rate. In 2015, however, the influx came to be seen as the most severe refugee crisis since World War II. Among other factors, Germany’s refugee policy triggered the mass migration. Chancellor Angela Merkel adopted an ‘open-door policy’ in 2015 that saw a million refugees flocking for safety.

Refugees followed either the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy or the Balkan route – an overland path from Turkey and Albania to Greece and other southern European nations. From there, they wished to move towards the more prosperous northern ‘destination countries’ such as Germany. This flow created a massive bottleneck that spread to the rest of Europe. Since Germany could not accommodate the entire number, Austria and Slovenia became transit ground for people. Among them were also the Jafari sisters, entering EU through Croatia after fleeing Afghanistan with their children.

With the reinforcement of the Dublin Regulation, the EU Court opened up the possibility of mass refugee deportation of those who arrived in 2015 and early 2016. The landmark ruling in effect dismissed the notion that this historical migration was an ‘exceptional situation’ – a scenario that the EU struggled to manage, both logistically and politically. Now, it is an invitation for well-off countries to deport migrants to border countries which are ill-equipped to accommodate such large numbers.

Border countries ill-equipped to handle pressure

Eleanor Sharpston, British advocate-general of the EU Court had warned that the system could leave the border states “unable to cope”. Italy has seen a 20% increase in incoming refugee population and the number doesn’t seem to be decreasing in the near future. Roughly 75% of the migrants arriving in Europe land in Italy. About 2,00,000 beds have already been filled in its refugee care centres. Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni says the situation is no longer sustainable unless the burden is shared more equitably with other EU states. The problem becomes political when France, Switzerland and Austria are securing their borders, leaving Italy to shoulder all responsibility. In July, Italy threatened to seal its ports and halt rescue ships carrying people from Libya.

In an attempt to curb the influx of refugees, Croatia introduced new border restrictions in March 2016 to close the Balkan route. Similarly, Greece is facing an ongoing political and economic resource dearth to aid refugees. On July 27, the European Commission announced a new emergency support package of $243 million for Greece. At the moment, total refugee funding for Greece stands at $401 million. With an increase in refugee population, the country will plummet into greater financial debt.

Questioning the validity of the regulation

In a separate case, General Yves Bot, another advocate general of the EU court suggested obligatory relocation of asylum seekers within the bloc as a “proportionate” means of enabling Greece and Italy to deal with the migration crisis. Hungary and Slovakia have challenged the case, calling for the cancellation of the mandatory quota to relocate refugees within the bloc. A ruling is expected later this year.

The current situation is, hence, especially precarious. The validity of the Dublin Regulation, given the current context, is put on hold. While the ruling might have been legitimate pre-2015 migration, as of today, the number of refugees is simply too high for a few countries to deal with, especially border countries which have either reached saturation such as Italy or are just not logistically well-equipped such as Greece. Only if the mandatory quota for refugee re-allocation gets passed, can we expect a ‘fairer’ system to come into place.

Featured Image Source: Visual Hunt

Stay updated with all the insights.

Navigate news, 1 email day.

Subscribe to Qrius