Reception, protection and referral procedures in hotspots

• Author: Amandine Scherrer
• Pages: 22-30

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

22

3. Reception, protection and referral procedures in hotspots

In addition to difficulties relating to victim identification at an early stage upon arrival on EU shores,

the living conditions in reception centres increase the risks of further exploitation for vulnerable

groups while they are waiting for their papers to be processed and/or their referrals to be effective.

Many concerns have been raised about the reception conditions in hotspots with respect to the

effectiveness of vulnerability screenings, the availability of interpreters and mediation services, the

number of people accommodated at the facilities, and their access to healthcare.97

3.1. Reception conditions and risks of trafficking/exploitation

As described above (Section 1.3), the Reception Conditions Directive explicitly recognises in its

Article 21 victims of trafficking as 'vulnerable groups'. While Member States are expected to provide

reception conditions in line with the directive, these conditions differ significantly in Greece and

Italy. In both Italy and Greece (but to a different extent due to the length of stay in hotspots),

concerns have been raised as regard the lack of safe spaces exposing the most vulnerable to the risk

of abuse and violence. Consequently, it is not only victims of trafficking arriving on EU shores who

are at risk of further exploitation: stays in hotspots can also produce new victims of trafficking and

exploitation.

3.1.1. Greece

Overall reception conditions

The situation in the Greek hotspots continues to raise many concerns as regards the reception and

living conditions of migrants, which remain sub-standard. The UNHCR recently reiterated these

concerns and reported on the 'abhorrent' conditions in the centres in Samos and Lesvos. It called on

the authorities in Greece to take urgent steps to address the humanitarian situation for around

11 000 asylum-seekers on these islands.98 In its 2019 opinion of the ho tspots, the FRA echoed these

concerns, underlining the 'undignified conditions' in which refugees and migrants are 'trapped'.99

The FRA outlines several contributing factors to this worrisome situation. These include

procurement, staffing and coordination challenges, as detailed in Section 2.2.1. It also stresses that

the application of the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 led to longer stays in the hotspots,

thus compounding already poor reception and living conditions. Whereas before the adoption of

the Statement, migrants arriving were transferred to the mainland once the initial identification,

registration and fingerprinting had been completed in the hotspots, the situation changed with the

application of the Statement's provisions. New arrivals to Greece were from then on also to lodge

their asylum application directly at the hotspot; this requirement changed the transit period from a

few days to several months (until a decision is taken).

On average, people stay over five months on the eastern Aegean islands. Since the infrastructure

and the services offered in the hotspots are not designed for long-term stays, problems with

overpopulation and poor material conditions in the transit camps have increased. These conditions

97 Wouter van Ballegooij and Cecilia Navarra, The cost of non-Europe in asylum policy, EPRS, October 2018; Médecins

sans Frontières, Confronting the mental health emergency on Samos and Lesvos, 2017.

98 UNHCR, UNHCR urges Greece to accelerate emergency measures to address conditions on Samos and Lesvos,

November 2018.

99 FRA, Update of the 2016 opinion on fundamental rights in the hotspots set up in Greece and Italy, p.22.