Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

Well, in the end, the EU admitted it was deficient in its management of the external borders by finally taking its own advice, evaluations, recommendations etc and invested more Frontex manpower, equipment, developed a whole new "Agency" - the European Border and Coastguard - and greater Triton/Poseidon Sea patrols and not to mention NATO-Aegean reconnaissance sailings - plus the deal with Turkey to act better and take back migrants.

Was this what Greece was 'deficient' in? All those missing things that have now been magically added to the mix? I can't wait to see how they are going to word a document on Greece's management of all these extraneous entities.

Here is the list of what Greece was 'deficient' in . All 50 of them.

Greece should
A) for the sites visited at the sea border:
Registration procedure
1. clearly state in the documents of 'suspension of removal' which are provided to the irregular
migrants during the registration process, that the document does not give the irregular migrant the
right to stay and enter other Member States, and include, where necessary, certain obligations aimed
at avoiding the risk of absconding (in line with Article 7(3) of the Return Directive);
5985/16 LB/mdc 6
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
2. improve the quality of the 'temporary stay' documents, including certain security features, making
it less easy to falsify the documents;
3. reinforce the Hellenic Police (HP) staffing for registration;
4. provide, taking into account the expected number of migrants arriving based on a risk assessment
approach, the necessary facilities for accommodation during the registration process (including for
vulnerable persons);
5. carry out systematic checks of irregular migrants' travel documents for signs of falsification or
counterfeiting and check migrants and their travel documents against SIS, Interpol and national
databases during the registration process, in order to do that, passport scanners should be used in the
registration procedure;
6. perform registration in line with the Article 14 of the Eurodac regulation, by ensuring timely
collection and transmission of migrants' fingerprints;
7. provide an adequate number of functioning fingerprint scanners and Eurodac terminals with
direct access to the Eurodac system to guarantee that all arriving migrants are registered and make
sure that they are supported by adequate and sufficient IT capacity (uninterrupted internet,
broadband);
8. increase the quality of finger prints taken manually during the registration process so that it meets
the standards required to be registered in the EURODAC system;
9. take appropriate measures to ensure that all irregular migrants are fully identified, fingerprinted
and registered into Eurodac whilst fully respecting fundamental rights and human dignity;
5985/16 LB/mdc 7
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
10. immediately launch return procedures for irregular migrants who are not seeking asylum and
who are not in need of international protection, in line with the Return Directive (2008/115), and
provide for a swift transfer of third-country nationals who are eligible to be returned and readmitted
to Turkey in accordance with the bilateral Protocol between Greece and Turkey, ensuring their
physical transfer, while taking appropriate measures to prevent absconding.
Border surveillance
12. taking measures to improve sea border surveillance by establishing a comprehensive and
effective coastal surveillance system covering the whole sea border between Greece and Turkey;
the surveillance system should provide the possibility to detect all vessels, including small boats
that are crossing the sea border from Turkey to Greece; in order to identify, detect and apprehend
illegal border crossers, the system should be supported by an offshore element: offshore patrol boats
and vessels, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and other means, as well as a sufficient number of land
patrols on the island;
13. ensure, in the short term, sufficient patrolling activity especially between the islands, as well as
a sufficient number of patrol boats kept in readiness for rapid reaction;
14. consider, in order to ensure full situational awareness, the sharing of information between the
relevant authorities involved and the Coast Guard;
Risk analyses
15. establish and implement at local level, as soon as possible, a risk analysis system;
16. nominate and train the necessary personnel at local level for carrying out risk analysis activities;
17. familiarise the first line border guards with the common foreign terrorist fighters risk indicators;
5985/16 LB/mdc 8
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
International cooperation
18. consider to establish cooperation with the Turkish border control authorities at local level as it
exists at the land border with Turkey;
Human resources and training
19. increase training at the local level especially on forged and falsified documents, risk analysis
and updated legislation; this could also be done by the exchange of officers between BCP's as well
as by making better use of the available Frontex tools with regard to forged and falsified
documents;
20. provide language training to border guards with a particular focus on Turkish and English;
21. train more border guards to be able to work at the second line check with devices for advanced
checks of the travel documents;
Border checks procedures
22. bring border checks on EU citizens in line with the Commission recommendation of 15 June
2015 on EU citizens coming from risk areas;
23. intensify the use of relevant document analysis tools in order to ensure efficient document fraud
detection;
24. provide third country nationals who are subject to a thorough second line check with written
information on the purpose and procedure for such a check in accordance with Article 7(5) of the
Schengen Border Code;
25. issue the visa fully in line with the Visa code by integrating the photo of the visa applicant in the
visa sticker;
5985/16 LB/mdc 9
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
26. perform checks on cruise ships based on the crew and passenger list, in line with Annex VI
3.2.3 (b) of the Schengen Border Code;
27. perform checks on pleasure boats coming from third countries at a border crossing points;
28. conduct third country nationals' border checks in line with Article 7 of the SBC, especially by
carrying out interviews on entry conditions such as purpose of stay and means of subsistence
(border crossing point Chios);
29. bring the procedure to annul or revoke a visa at the border in line with Article 34 of the Visa
Code (border crossing point Chios);
30. take appropriate measures to ensure access to iFado for the border guards at the BCP (Samos);
Infrastructure and equipment
31. take appropriate measures to provide the first line control booths with magnifying devices in
order to enhance the document checks;
32. improve the conditionality of the control booth shelter in order to prevent unauthorized persons
from observing the computer screen;
33. ensure that all border guards involved in border checks are able to access and use the updated
versions of the Schengen Borders Code (SBC), the Schengen Handbook (SHB) and respective
Annexes;
34. ensure the proper functioning of the visa fingerprint scanners at the control booths in order to
carry out the checks on third country nationals who are in possession of a visa in line with Article 7,
paragraph 3(aa) of the SBC (border crossing point Chios);
35. provide the possibility for border guards at the Port of Chios to observe the passenger flow e.g.
by installing a video surveillance system (CCTV);
36. ensure that the recommendations 31 to 35 on infrastructure and equipment are taken into
account when building the new passenger terminal in Samos.
5985/16 LB/mdc 10
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
B) for the sites visited at the land border
Police directorate Orestiada
37. develop more comprehensive situational awareness and the role of the Regional Coordination
Centre by integrating functions currently covered by the Regional Control Centre and Nea Vyssa
centre; this could be done for instance by relocating the surveillance centre from Nea Vyssa to the
regional I.B.M. & Monitoring centre at the PD Orestiada, to ensure a more comprehensive
situational picture and allowing the latter centre to monitor and operate more effectively in one
place; this development would also save human resources;
38. finalise the installation of GPS transmitters to the patrolling vehicles or units to enable the
surveillance centre to monitor their location;
39. continue with the efforts for strengthening the cooperation with Bulgaria and Turkey and to
participate actively in the future activities of the 'Trilateral Common Contact Center for police and
customs cooperation';
Reception center Fylakio
Registration procedure
40. take appropriate measures to provide an adequate number of Eurodac terminals, taking into
account the expected number of migrants arriving based on a risk assessment approach, to
guarantee that they are all registered in the Eurodac system;
41. ensure the availability of a sufficient number of screening experts and make an effort to provide
a sufficient number of interpreters in the languages required in order to cope with any potential
mass influx of irregular migrants;
42. perform systematic checks of irregular migrants and their travel documents against SIS, Interpol
(SLDT) and national databases during the registration process; provide and develop the necessary
capacity (expertise and equipment) to check the authenticity of travel documents, in line with
Article 12 SBC in combination with Article 7 SBC;
5985/16 LB/mdc 11
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
BCP Kastanies
Human resources and training
43. increase the number of staff per shift at BCP Kastanies and ensure the deployment of at least
one officer in the second line in order to guarantee smooth border crossing and to avoid irregular
crossings and long queuing, in line with Article 14 and 15 of the SBC;
Infrastructure and equipment
44. extend the VIS verification application (CVIS) in order to provide the first line with all
information stored inside the VIS in order to facilitate the examination of the entry conditions;
45. take appropriate measures to ensure that all electronic resources are updated regularly;
46. reallocate the heart beat detector at the BCP Kastanies since there is no cargo traffic allowed to
cross at this BCP to another BCP at the Greek land borders or ports where it can be used for the
border checks of heavy good vehicles;
47. bring the current infrastructure in line with the Schengen requirements with a comprehensive
development plan taking into account all Schengen requirements including traffic management,
control booths, lanes, surveillance system and fencing;
48. improve traffic management and surveillance of at the border crossing point to ensure that
border checks are carried out systematically;
Border checks procedures
49. ensure that persons subjected to thorough second line checks are informed in advance about the
purpose of such a check;
5985/16 LB/mdc 12
ANNEX DG D 1 A EN
C) General Recommendation
50. take appropriate measures to ensure that at all external borders of Greece, external border
control is carried out and brought in line with the Schengen Acquis in order not to jeopardise the
functioning of the Schengen area.

That is the list Greece has presented an action plan to deal with.

[url]http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5985-2016-INIT/en/pdf
[/url]

[GreekIslandGirl]

And so what? You just don't get it! Everyone has had to pitch in and do their bit (e.g 'survellaince') off the list! Yes, Greece has the final say and overall charge: but it's been given a whole lot of Frontex, personnel, finger-printing equipment, Poseidon, NATO ships etc plus other deals and toys to implement in the JOINT management of the External Border - around Greece!

What you don't like is the fact Greece has been recognised for the sterling work it did by itself, under unprecedented conditions and it was the failure of the EU to make all the other accountable states to take their share of the responsibility and help! Now they are coming on board.

Has Greece been left alone to struggle as it had before? No! Why? Because it was NEVER supposed to struggle alone to patrol the EU borders for a million illegal migrants entering via every square inch of territory!

The deficiencies were made by other EU states not doing THEIR bit.

[erolz66]

Everyone has had to pitch in and do their bit

And the 'bit' Greece was supposed to be doing it was found to be 'seriously deficient 'in doing by the EU using the mechanism defined in law to establish if and to what degree a given member state is or is not achieving 'doing their bit'.

What you don't like is the fact Greece has been recognised for the sterling work it did by itself, under unprecedented conditions and it was the failure of the EU to make all the other accountable states to take their share of the responsibility and help! Now they are coming on board.

And yet back in the REAL world

The evaluation report, based on on-site visits, and revealing serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control by Greece

I have no idea what the words 'by Greece' mean in you fantasy land, presumably it means 'by everyone other than Greece' but back in the real world 'by Greece' means that it was Greece that was seriously deficient.

Has Greece been left alone to struggle as it had before?

Has Greece been given more aid, more assistance, more emergency funds that previously so that it can try and meet IT's obligations and duties, as a result of it having been identified as having been seriously deficient in carry out those duties and obligations, previously ? Yes it has.

The deficiencies were made by other EU states not doing THEIR bit.

And yet back in the REAL world

The evaluation report, based on on-site visits, and revealing serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control by Greece

[supporttheunderdog]

The deficiencies were made by other EU states not doing THEIR bit.

As I have pointed out, unless and until Greece Asked FRONTEX for a RABIT, which they only did on 3rd December, no one out side of Greece was was obliged to provide any one or anything to Greece in respect of the deficiencies and (as I have pointed out) what has happened either flowing from the request on 3/12/15 or that is outside of the areas covered by the evaluation do not affect the position as at 13/11/15 when the Frontex inspections finished. Greece and no one else was solely responsible till then.

No one else was

not doing THEIR bit

as they did not and could not have a bit to do until 3rd December at the earliest. They had neither right nor duty, until asked. Indeed as I have asked, having regard to that requirement for the member state to seek assistance, under what mechanism could they step in? You have never addressed that, but one cannot blame anyone when they had no right to intervene until they were asked to do so. That is what you are trying to do to divert attention from what are likely massive systemic failings by Greece.

In my view the most significant deficiency on the part of Greece was in not asking for a RABIT sooner - they did not need to wait for an inspection but should have been self assessing , and under the circumstances where the Greek Authorities knew or should have known they were being overwhelmed, and were not meeting their obligations, possibly as early as March certainly by the Summer, say June, that is when they should have asked. Their failure to identify the problems and ask earlier is in my view indicative of massive systemic failings, but as it was they left themselves exposed.

I have asked before and ask again, why did they leave it so long?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Idiot number one, I've already shown (pages back) you that your assumptions on when Greece first asked for help was wrong. It's still wrong!

[supporttheunderdog]

Incorrect. The official EU documentation clearly states that Greece only asked for aid from Frontex in respect of the deficiencies found in November on 3rd December 2015. They may have been asking for other aid under other programs to deal with other aspects of the migrant crises earlier but they are not the topic of this debate which is solely about the deficiencies found in the November inspections, and the consequences flowing from that, where for this one the trigger date for aid was 3 rd December.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Incorrect. The official EU documentation clearly states that Greece only asked for aid from Frontex in respect of the deficiencies found in November on 3rd December 2015. They may have been asking for other aid under other programs to deal with other aspects of the migrant crises earlier but they are not the topic of this debate which is solely about the deficiencies found in the November inspections, and the consequences flowing from that, where for this one the trigger date for aid was 3 rd December.

You are so full of contradictions.

Above you claimed:

No one could do their bit because: "they did not and could not have a bit to do until 3rd December at the earliest." And then you ask why Greece didn't ask for help until "3rd December". Well duh! So why are you blaming Greece for not asking much sooner than 3rd December if this was some crucial date for joint border management?

Anyway, as I said, Greece had asked for help from last May (2015) and no one was forthcoming.

Even with all that has come to pass, we still only see countries such as Poland starting to do their joint bit from now!

[supporttheunderdog]

There is no contradiction. Greece could have asked for aid to deal with the deficiencies at any time once Greece knew these deficiencies existed and they needed help to desl with them . That situstion most certainly existed for many months before the inspection in November but according to the official eu documents, including the 8th Biennel report, Greece did not ask for aid in resoect of desling with the deficiencies until third December. Where it was incumbent on Greece to ask for aid, the date on which it asked for aid (3rd December) is the trigger date upon which the obligation crystalised to provide aid to Greece to deal with those deficiencies. If Greece had asked esrlier, as it could if not should have done, that earlier date woukd have been the trigger date. In the context if these laws the trigger date when the obligation to provide aid arises is the date of the request.

As i said, other requests for aid are not relevent to this debate. The only request that is relevent is the formal request for help in dealing with these deficiencies on 3rd December.

However one thing this demonstrates, again, is you seem to have no clue how the EU operates and in particular how structured and rule bound it is. On dealing with the deficiencies, and they are the only thing under debate, not other aspects of other aid programs under diferent rules, there had to be that formal request. I repeat, accirding to all official sources rather than those you have alluded to, the date of that specific formal request was 3rd December.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Greece asked for help from last May.

The sad fact is that it shouldn't have been the only one to ask for help as Frontex were supposed to be patrolling all the time too and assessing the situation at the external borders.

In the end, I see Frontex as bearing the greatest responsibility and it is in fact the agency that has received the most overhaul in its role. It must have been quite an insult for Frontex to accept help from NATO and in some respects I can see how they are rivals for a future policing role.

[supporttheunderdog]

Greece asked for help from last May.

For dealing with these deficiencies? Can you identify the official requests? Apart from the 3rd december request i can find no other request from Greece to Frontex and such shoukd have been mentioned in the bieenial report you quoted. It was not.

The sad fact is that it shouldn't have been the only one to ask for help as Frontex were supposed to be patrolling all the time too and assessing the situation at the external borders.

How? Frontex has no patrol staff nor equipment of its own nor any legal mandate for independent patrolling. All this had to done at the request of and under the authority of the home member state in the area concerned, with borrowed staff and equipment. .

In the end, I see Frontex as bearing the greatest responsibility and it is in fact the agency that has received the most overhaul in its role. It must have been quite an insult for Frontex to accept help from NATO and in some respects I can see how they are rivals for a future policing role.

None of what you write conforms to defined role of frontex as it was enshrined in Law at any material time. It is wishful,thinking on your part to inflate that role to support your own agenda.

The recent expansion of Frontex role and eg the creation of a border force and EU Coast guard, flows from the need to protect the EU from changing circumstances. Here Nato and Frontex cannot be rivals for a policing role. Nato is military. It us also NOT EU. It has access to Military ships Frontex does not and will not have. The new EU coast guard will not involve Nato forces. They will cooperate as partners, indeed the NATO ships are likely subordinate to the EU authorities, represented by Frontex.