Union européenne

Les « pirates » islandais ont réalisé une belle percée lors de législatives anticipées qui ont sanctionné la droite sortante, mais sans cependant assurer de majorité à l'opposition, selon des résultats partiels. Le Parti pirate ne fait cependant pas aussi bien que le laissaient entendre certains sondages d'opinion.

Une forte secousse sismique, de magnitude 6,6 selon l'institut américain de géologie, a de nouveau frappé vers 7h40 (6h40 TU) le centre de l'Italie, quatre jours après deux séismes dans cette même région. C'est la secousse la plus puissante depuis 1980, mais miraculeusement il n'y pas eu de morts. On dénombre néanmoins une dizaine de blessés graves.

Dans le cadre de son budget pour 2017, marqué par la rigueur, le gouvernement portugais envisage de tenir compte, dans la taxation des logements, du niveau d'ensoleillement et de la qualité de la vue. Une taxe « soleil » en quelque sorte.

Avec quelques jours de retard et bien des péripéties, le traité de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et le Canada, le Ceta, a finalement été signé ce dimanche 30 octobre à Bruxelles, en présence du Premier ministre canadien.

Les Moldaves sont appelés aux urnes ce dimanche 30 octobre pour élire leur président. L'enjeu est de taille car cela fait vingt ans que le président moldave n'a pas été élu au suffrage universel direct. Ce scrutin est d'autant plus important que pour la première fois depuis l'indépendance du pays, la lutte anti-corruption s'est retrouvée au cœur de la campagne électorale renversant une rhétorique habituellement centrée sur les questions géopolitiques.

More than 12,000 people have already signed a petition asking the Geneva-based giant Trafigura to sell only gasoline and diesel that comply with European standards around the world.
The Swiss trader business model of producing and selling highly polluting high sulfur fuels in Africa has also been politically critical. In Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal, the responsible authorities and members of the government have had to answer many questions and criticisms about the health consequences of poor sulfur standards and poor quality fuels.

Swiss commodity trading companies take advantage of weak fuel standards in Africa to produce, deliver and sell diesel and gasoline, which is damaging to people’s health. Their business model relies on an illegitimate strategy of deliberately lowering the quality of fuels in order to increase their profits. Using a common industry practice called blending, trading companies mix cheap but toxic intermediate petroleum products to make what the industry calls “African Quality” fuels. These intermediate products contain high levels of sulphur as well as other toxic substances such as benzene and aromatics.

By selling such fuels at the pump in Africa, the traders increase outdoor air pollution, causing respiratory disease and premature death. This affects West Africa, in particular, because this is the region where the authorised levels of sulphur in fuels remain very high. West Africa does not have the re ning capacity to produce enough gasoline and diesel for its own consumption, and so it must import the majority of its fuels from Europe and the US, where fuel standards are strict, Public Eye`s investigation September 2016 analyse writes.

To draw attention to this swiss illegal traffic, thanks to Public Eye's "Return to sender" action, the container Irene Rainbow, with on board a container marked "Return to sender" ", Filled with polluted air from the Ghanaian capital traveled 7,000 kilometers separating Accra from the port of Anvers and was then transported to Geneva, where it was handed to Trafigura.

Tag: dirty dieselSwitzerland

Le verrou politique vient de se débloquer en Espagne, où le chef du gouvernement sortant Mariano Rajoy a reçu ce 29 octobre la confiance des députés pour former un nouvel exécutif. Le leader de la droite espagnole reprend les rênes du pays pour quatre ans. Il est toutefois dans une situation précaire car son gouvernement est minoritaire face à un Parlement très fragmenté.

A l'occasion de la journée de commémoration des victimes de la répression politique, le 30 octobre, l'ONG Memorial publie une liste de prisonniers politiques en Russie. Ces listes comprennent des gens qui ont été jugés ou sont en attente de jugement et des personnes assignées à résidence. D'après Memorial, leur nombre a doublé, passant de 50 à 102 entre 2015 et 2016. Et pour la première fois, Memorial publie une liste de personnes persécutées en raison de leurs croyances religieuses.

L’initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE) a vu le jour en 2012 grâce au Traité de Lisbonne. Elle permet aux citoyens européens de demander à la Commission européenne de légiférer sur des dossiers qui relèvent de sa compétence.

Pour l’instant, la Commission semble faire la sourde oreille aux initiatives citoyennes.

L’idée était très séduisante et a soulevé beaucoup d’espoirs. Elle reste séduisante sur le papier mais la procédure pour mener à bien une ICE est extrêmement lourde. Il faut tout d’abord créer un comité de citoyens de minimum sept personnes venant de sept Etats membres. Ensuite, l’initiative citoyenne doit récolter un million de signatures provenant encore une fois de minimum sept Etats membres dans une période d’un an après son lancement.

Pour éviter les abus ou les tricheries, ce million de signatures doit être authentifié. A cette fin, dans chaque Etat membre, un organisme officiel est chargé de garantir à la Commission que tous les signataires du pays existent bel et bien, qu’aucun n’a signé plus d’une fois.Et même dans le cas où toutes les conditions sont belles et bien remplies, que le million de signatures a été atteint, la Commission n’a aucune obligation de suivre la proposition de l’initiative citoyenne. Elle devra toutefois justifier son refus de légiférer.

Jusqu’à présent, sur les 56 propositions d’initiative citoyenne qui ont été déposées, 36 ont bien été enregistrées par la Commission mais seulement trois d’entre elles sont parvenues à atteindre le million de signatures. Cependant, aucune n’a été suivie d’une proposition législative de la part de la Commission européenne.

Alors, faut-il réformer le système des initiatives citoyennes ? Le Parlement européen devrait-il être plus impliqué dans la procédure ? Après la récolte du million de signatures, la Commission ne devrait-elle pas être obligée de prendre des mesures concrètes ? Autant de questions .

Plusieurs organisations défendant les droits des citoyens parmi les quelles Democracy international et Mehr Demokratie (plus de démocratie) ont transmis le 24 octobre, à la Commission européenne, une pétition signée par plus de 40 000 personnes lui demandant d’arrêter son refus de renforcer l’Initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE). Elles souhaitent lever certaines contrainte qui condamnent, selon elles, les ICE à l’échec : des exigences trop strictes en matière de collecte de signatures, la complexité excessive du système de collecte en ligne en ligne de signatures, l’impossibilité de déterminer la date de lancement d’une campagne de collecte de signatures.

La Commission persiste dans son silence, son récent programme de travail pour l’année prochaine est muet à cet égard. ECAS de son côté fait un effort pour relancer une campagne d’opinion. (cf. « Pour en savoir plus »)

 

Pour en savoir plus :  principales sources d’information

     -. Prise de position de Ecas http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=481b2702192ac14128f6d60c1&id=32d04dd19b

-. Democracy International – Petition Handover : « EU Commmission, listen to us ! » https://www.democracy-international.org/fr/node/1482

     -. Site de la Commission européenne consacré  à l’Initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE) (FR) http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=fr (EN) http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=en

     -. Les articles de Eulogos consacrés aux Initiatives citoyennes européennes http://www.eu-logos.org/eu-logos_nea-say.php?idr=4&idnl=3932&nea=176&lang=fra&arch=0&term=0

 

 

 

Classé dans:Citoyenneté européenne

Avec quelques jours de retard et bien des péripéties, le traité de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et le Canada sera finalement signé, ce dimanche 30 octobre. Les 3 Parlements régionaux belges, qui bloquaient la ratification du texte par la Belgique, ont finalement accepté de le signer. La plupart des termes du traité entreront en vigueur dès la signature.

Mes articles consacrés à la résolution temporaire de la crise du CETA sont ici et là. Comme je le disais depuis le début de cette affaire, un compromis était plus que probable. Ceux qui ont hurlé à la fin du libre échange ou à l’échec de l’Union (comme le MEDEF) sont Gros-Jean comme devant... Quelques avis de juristes de talent qui partagent mon analyse sur ce qui vient de se passer: Olivier Beaud ou Nicolas de Sadeleer.

L'Ukraine espère attirer les investisseurs pour renouer avec la croissance et pour s'affranchir de la Russie voisine. Depuis novembre 2015, Kiev n'achète plus de gaz russe et s'approvisionne auprès des pays européens. C'est donc pour convaincre les Français d'investir dans leur pays que les entrepreneurs ukrainiens sont venus à Paris aux côtés de leur Premier ministre.

Ce vendredi 28 octobre, la justice britannique a épinglé le géant Uber. Les juges londoniens ont donné raison à deux chauffeurs de véhicules Uber qui ont intenté une action en justice contre la plateforme, l'accusant de ne pas respecter le droit du travail.

Ce samedi 29 octobre, le chef du gouvernement provisoire, le conservateur Mariano Rajoy, au pouvoir depuis 2011, va être de nouveau intronisé pour un mandat de cinq ans. Et ce, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles : après 310 jours de vacances de pouvoir. C'est la première fois qu'un gouvernement en franche minorité va parvenir à la tête du pays, avec l'obligation de sceller des alliances avec d'autres formations.

Ce vendredi se tenait à Marseille la treizième réunion de « Dialogue 5+5 » des ministres des Affaires étrangères des dix pays de la Méditerranée occidentale (France, Portugal, Espagne, Italie, Malte, Algérie, Maroc, Libye, Mauritanie, Tunisie), co-présidée par le Français Jean-Marc Ayrault et le Marocain Salaheddine Mezouar. Les débats ont notamment porté sur la situation en Syrie ainsi que sur la prochaine COP 22 au Maroc, mais les échanges se sont surtout focalisés sur la Libye.

L'Assemblée générale de l'ONU a élu ce vendredi 28 octobre et pour trois ans les nouveaux membres du Conseil des droits de l'homme, qui siégera à Genève. Et parmi les 14 pays sélectionnés, un certain nombre de pays ne sont pas connus pour leur bilan en faveur des droits de l'homme. Parmi eux : l'Egypte, la Chine, le Rwanda, l'Arabie Saoudite, ou encore la Hongrie. La surprise cette année a été le rejet de la candidature de la Russie, qui ne siégera plus au Conseil des droits de l'homme. 

 

This week marked the “full and final” dismantlement and clearance of the notorious camp “the Jungle” in Calais, which had been announced by President Hollande on September 24 on humanitarian grounds. The operation aimed at the eviction of the camp’s 8,000 residents, who after entering Europe, settled in Calais, with the hope of eventually smuggle themselves across the Channel in order to join the United Kingdom.

The Jungle had become France’s largest shanty town. It was organised into different neighbourhoods and was composed of shops, restaurants and schools; however, its inhabitants also suffered disproportionately of insecure tenure, constant threat of eviction by French authorities and poor access to water and sanitation. Migrants of the Jungle originated from countries such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Nigeria, but also from the Middle East, from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from Bangladesh and Pakistan. While the camp counted economic migrants -that is migrants fleeing poverty and misery-, an important number of migrants were fleeing civil war, violence and oppressive regimes in states like war-torn states like Syria, Eritrea and Sudan. Calais’ Jungle had become the symbol of the migration crisis in Europe, and Europe’s failure to manage the flow of migrants across its borders.

From Monday morning until Wednesday, more than 5,500 migrants had been relocated to various reception centres across the country. After queuing for two to three hours, migrants and families gathered in a large warehouse turned into a coach station outside the Jungle, were divided into four different groups: ordinary migrants, migrants claiming to be accompanied minors, families and vulnerable people. Migrants were then given a few minutes to pick among the 280 reception and asylum centres spread across the country, with the exception of Paris and Corsica. Migrants should be authorized to stay in the reception centres for a few months while their asylum request is considered. On Tuesday, authorities began to remove the settlement before migrants set ablaze to their tents and makeshift shelters when they leave.

Following the agitation and incidents of March after the demolition of the southern half of the Jungle, French authorities along civil society and aid workers had been in recent weeks sharing information in order to prepare migrants’ eviction and convince them to accept temporary resettlement solutions in reception centres. Migrants received leaflets and comics detailing the plans and procedures that will follow their arrival in reception centres. Pas-de-Calais region’s officials and other French authorities have in the past weeks met the camp’s community leaders to ensure peaceful evacuation and the Ofpra asylum agency has been trying to convince migrants to seek asylum in France. Out of the 6400 migrants settled in the Jungle, the Ofpra estimates that 70 percent of migrants evicted from the Jungle should be given French residency and asylum right.  Additionally, 1,200 riot police had been deployed around the camp. Also, French authorities has announced that migrants refusing resettlement solutions will face arrest. Large incidents have largely been minimized and the dismantlement proceeded rather smoothly and took place in a somehow peaceful manner.

 

Unaccompanied children

During the operation, the French and British governments have been repeatedly blamed by the civil society for their lack of solution and aid for the unaccompanied refugee children living in the Jungle. While the relocation plan for the adult refugees and migrants of the Jungle had been announced and prepared, there still seems to be confusion and concerns on the fate of the 1,300 unaccompanied minor migrants in the camp.

In the past weeks, the British government agreed for the transfer and resettlement of 200 unaccompanied children of the camp who were able to prove family ties in the United Kingdom, under the European Union common asylum rules and the Dublin Regulation. However, establishing evidence of how many of these children are truly under 18 is a challenging task as many do not have any identity cards or birth certificates.

There was still on-going negotiations and meetings between the French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve and the UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd regarding the transfer of other children with no evidence of family connections in the UK. Indeed, another 200 unaccompanied children identified by the Red Cross as eligible to go to Britain remain stuck in an on-site container camp, where they will be assessed for eligibility for migrating to the UK. A large number of commentators and aid workers claimed the Jungle should never had been demolished until all the children were safe.

On Tuesday evening, while the Jungle evacuation began, UK Home Secretary, Amber Rudd announced several hundreds additional children will be transferred to the UK under the Dubs amendment, aiming at protecting refugee children across Europe. However, one in four Councils in the UK announced they cannot take responsibility for them. Additionally, Rudd repeatedly emphasised in her speech that no more children should be encouraged to come to Calais in the future. In other words, the fate of the hundreds of refugee children of the Jungle claiming family ties remains uncertain and worrying.

 

 

Reflection

The majority of the European community regrets the evacuation of the Jungle has taken so long. Calais has in fact become the symbol of the EU’s failure to find adequate and efficient solution to the tremendous and sudden influx of refugees and migrants.

Regarding minors, Calais illustrates the failure of the EU to find appropriate solution and deal with the record number of unaccompanied minor refugees applying for asylum in Europe. EUROPOL estimates the number of missing child refugees in Europe at approximately 10,000 and found that 88,245 unaccompanied children applied for asylum in the EU in 2015. The EU failed to put the protection of unaccompanied child refugees as a top priority, while European asylum system includes specific provisions for their protection. Under European legislation, minors who claim to have family ties in the EU are entitled to be with their family. Also, the Dublin Regulation should guarantee the protection of asylum applicants and especially guarantee the protection of minors. The lack of attention of EU’s member states and of European institutions resulted in a worrying number of disappearance and forced children into the hands of human traffickers.

In addition to its inability to develop efficient solutions for unaccompanied child refugees, the EU also proved unable to constrain Britain to take in its fair share of asylum seekers. EU member states failed to cooperate and coordinate and shown a complete absence of leadership and responsibility. Exacerbated by the Brexit, the EU has also been unable to sole the border issues existing between the UK and France. Last July, a delegation of MEPs from the LIBE Commission went to Calais to assess the situation in the refugee camp. While MEPs are working on several propositions aiming at tackling the issue, such as opening legal means in refugees’ home countries to access the EU and reforming the system of relocation of refugees among member states; Italian S&D MEP Cécile Kashetu Kyenge who was part of the delegation in Calais declared: “We are not lacking proposals, we are lacking common vision in Europe”. The failure of European member states to cooperate threatens the cohesion of the Union itself.

What happened in Calais is an expression of a much deeper problem within the European migration policy. Commentators indeed argue that if the EU’s asylum system had been performant, the camp in Calais would never have existed in the first place (Taub, 2016). European asylum and migration policy and the EU’s response to the migrant crisis are embedded within the Dublin Regulation.

The Dublin Regulation requires migrants to physically stay in the first European country they arrived in until their asylum applications are being processed. Under the Dublin mechanism, authorities have the right to return a migrant to another member states’ jurisdiction where there is a trace of his passage or entry. As a result, migrants settle in illegal settlements like the Jungle of Calais where they can easily escape supervision, while attempting to reach the UK. The Dublin mechanism is problematic as it creates a system where the responsibility for processing asylum application is linked to border management. Consequently, the burden of migration is put on entry and transit countries at Europe’s external borders and therefore creates an imbalance in the reception responsibility of migrants. Indeed, the Dublin mechanism enables countries including the UK and Hungary to shift away the burden of the refugee crisis to other member states, especially entry countries like Greece and Italy, which carry the burden of the migration crisis unilaterally. By preventing migrants to access countries like the UK that receive very little migrants, the Regulation resulted in the creation of camps in southern Europe and in Calais, qualified as humanitarian fiasco.

The European Parliament has called for an urgent reform of the system, noting that in the absence of a genuine common European asylum system, the Dublin system “will continue to be unfair both to asylum seekers and Member States”. The migration crisis has largely shed the light on the deficiencies of the Dublin system, which has been repeatedly criticized by Member States’ governments and EU representatives. The implications of Dublin III had largely been underestimated and its consequences eventually went against its original aim, that was preventing ‘asylum shopping” and “refugees in orbit”, that is the endless transfers of asylum seekers with no state taking responsibility. Despite deficiencies and criticism, the Dublin system remains in force.

 

On May 4th 2016, the European Commission proposed a reform of Dublin III, however the proposal does not attempt to change fundamentally the mechanism. The core objectives of the proposal Dublin IV are:

• Strengthen the protection of asylum seekers and make the overall process more efficient so that asylum procedures and decisions are produced more quickly so that asylum seekers can be granted international protection quickly while respecting Members States’ individual administrative capacity (European Parliament, 2016).
• Prevent secondary movements of refugees across the EU and discourage ‘asylum shopping’
• Articulate and develop tools and schemes to face large-scale crisis pressuring Member States’ asylum systems; as well as creating an equity mechanism that ensures sufficient degree of solidarity and responsibility sharing between states.

The proposal aims at reforming the common asylum system, especially strengthening responsibility sharing; relocation schemes; and crisis management mechanism. Nevertheless, the Dublin IV proposal is unlikely to achieve its objectives and more particularly enhancing fundamental rights respect as it does not include asylum seekers’ preferences into asylum legislation. As argued by Doctor Hruschka (2016), the proposal Dublin IV is founded on the idea that secondary movements are the result of divergent asylum practices across member states. However, other motives for movements of refugees such as family ties, cultural links and economic prosperity are largely ignored by the proposal. Especially, it limits the possibility for migrants to initiate asylum procedures in countries other that their entry ones, which was behind the creation of the Jungle itself. In other words, Dublin IV appears to suffer from similar deficiencies and shortcomings as its previous version.

European Institutions along some European leaders attempted to put in place refugee compulsory quotas so that the burden of the migrant crisis can be divided equally among states, which would prevent the development of unsanitary camps like Calais or in the Greek island of Lesbos. The proposition was nonetheless rejected by head of states including Obran in Hungary, and therefore seems far from being agreed on.

 

Really the end of the Jungle?

Organisations such as Médecins du Monde worry of what is to come after the clearance operations of the camp and whether there will be adequate structure for refugees. Indeed, the influx of refugees and migrants arriving in Calais to reach the UK will not slow down with the dismantling of the camp. Aid workers largely argue the demolition of the camp and of its infrastructures does not constitute a long-term solution and might eventually result in the burgeoning of smaller-scale camps around the region of Calais. There are also concerns that the clearance of the Jungle will simply shift the issue to other parts of the northern coast of France of Belgium. Commentators argue that the approval of the UK government to pay for the building of a wall along the motorway in Calais proves authorities do not really believe the demolition of the Jungle will put an end to the crisis in Calais.

Nevertheless, much will depend on the services offered to migrants in reception centres; the lengthen of asylum procedure proceeding. Indeed, the sustainability of the solution also depends on whether migrants will be provided with translators and French lessons, and whether reception centres will be far from administrative offices needed for asylum application. Also, the reception and attitudes migrants will receive in reception centres’ villages and towns across France will largely determine whether migrants decide to return to Calais and seek to reach the UK. However, the attacks in France in the past two years coupled with the migration crisis stoked anti-migration sentiment across the country, as illustrated by the attacks on several reception centres in the last few days.

Political consideration and changes could also impact the future of Calais and the Jungle. Indeed, Alain Juppé, the favourite to become rightwing “Les Républicains” presidential candidate demanded to overturn the border with Britain from Calais to British coasts and announced he will pressure the British authorities for a shared responsibility of the Jungle’s migrants as well as renegotiate the Touquet agreement.  Juppé indeed argued: “We cannot accept making the selection on French territory of people that Britain does or doesn’t want. It’s up to Britain to do that job » (CNN, 2016).

 

 

The events in Calais therefore highlight the issues with the European migration system and evidence the EU is still torn between national interests. The EU has been too slow to react and foster cooperation between its member states, and often left civil society and aid workers be the ones to provide support to migrants and minor refugees living in the Jungle.

Reflecting on the experience of Calais, the EU must develop standards et the European level to monitor and sanction member states’ records of human rights violation. For instance, the EU must ensure children’s protection is a priority and is properly enforced in member states. Meeting in Strasbourg this week, MEPs adopted a resolution on October 25 aiming at putting an end to the crisis-driven and management approach to breaches of human and fundamental rights in European states through the development of a binding mechanism and enforcement instruments to report and record such breaches (see: Stur,2016). The mechanism will function along a panel of experts that will produce an annual report on the state of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights in member states and European institutions, and will therefore be used for monitoring activities and sanctions. With the adoption of this new EU mechanism that will ensure European states’ respect fundamental rights, the EU proves it aims at addressing the ongoing cases of breaches of human rights and fundamental principles occurring along the migration crisis.

Kim Chardon

 

 

Bibliography

 Euractiv.com with Reuters, (24.10.2016), “Fate of child migrants uncertain before France demolishes Jungle camp”, Euarctiv, Accessed: http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/fate-of-child-migrants-uncertain-before-france-demolishes-jungle-camp/?nl_ref=23271311

European Commission, (06.04.2016), “Country responsible for asylum application (Dublin), Accessed: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants/index_en.htm

European Parliament, (28.06.2016), “The Reform of the Dublin III Regulation”, Accessed: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)571360

European Parliament, (14.07.2016), “Migration: MEPs assess refugee camps in Calais”, Accessed: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160712STO36951/migration-meps-assess-refugee-camps-in-calais

Clarke H., (17.10.2016), “Refugee children from Calais camp arrive in UK”, CNN, Accessed: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/europe/calais-france-migrants-children/

Crisp J., (26.07.2016), “UK and EU ‘failing’ unaccompanied child refugees”, Euractic, Accessed: http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/uk-and-eu-failing-unaccompanied-child-refugees/

Degbe E., (23.10.2016), “Les images que le gouvernement veut à tour prix éviter lors du démentèlement de la “Jungle” de Calais”, Huffpost, Accessed: http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/10/23/jungle-calais-evacuation-migrants-video/?ncid=fcbklnkfrhpmg00000001

Dr. Hruschka C., (20.05.2016), “Dublin est mort! Longue vie à Dublin! La proposition de réforme du 4 mai 2016 de la C ommission”, Réseau Universitaire européen, Accessed: http://www.gdr-elsj.eu/2016/05/20/asile/5044/

Hume T., (21.10.2016), “French candidate Alain Juppé: Move UK border from France to Britain”, CNN, Accessed: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/21/europe/france-uk-jungle-migrants-juppe/

McPartland B., (2016), “Migrant crisis won’t end with Calais ‘Jungle’ closure”, The Local, Accessed: https://www.thelocal.fr/20161024/after-the-jungle-what-happens-next-for-migrants-in-france

Rawlinson K., et al, (24.10.2016), “Calais”, The Guardian, Accessed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/oct/24/calais-camp-riot-police-prepare-demolish-refugees-migrant

Stur B., (26.10.2016), “MEPs call for EU fundamental rights watchdog”, New Europe, Accessed: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/meps-call-eu-fundamental-rights-watchdog/

Taub A., (8.03.2016), “The humanitarian crisis in Calais is a symptom of the EU’s biggest failure”, Vox, Accessed: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/8/11180232/jungle-calais-refugee-camp

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, MIGRATIONS ET ASILE, Uncategorized Tagged: Calais, Dublin regulation, France, migration, refugees, UK

Les Islandais sont appelés aux urnes ce samedi 29 octobre pour des élections législatives anticipées par le scandale des paradis fiscaux provoqué par les « Panama Papers ». Le Premier ministre ainsi que deux ministres avaient été poussés à la démission après des manifestations monstres en Islande. Le Parti Pirate, qui milite pour une réforme en profondeur, est très bien placé dans les sondages à quelques jours du scrutin, il pourrait être en position de gouverner en formant une coalition.

Eulogos poursuit sa chronique les Jeux de Rio et le dopage, une chronique qui ne semble pas destinée à prendre fin rapidement.Selon le document, le programme antidopage mis en place aux Jeux a souffert de plusieurs « manquements graves ». Il relève notamment que plusieurs athlètes qui devaient être contrôlés n’ont tout simplement « pas pu être localisés ». Ils étaient pourtant présents à Rio de Janeiro. Une faille dans le système qui en dit long sur la fiabilité des tests effectués de façon inopinée tout au long de l’année.

Le rapport écrit : « Au final, beaucoup d’athlètes ciblés pour des contrôles au village olympique n’ont tout simplement pas pu être localisés et la mission a dû être interrompue. Certains jours, le taux de contrôles prévus qui ont été abandonnés est monté jusqu’à 50%. » En vertu de la procédure en cours dans les grandes compétitions, les athlètes aux abonnés absents étaient convoqués pour un autre jour, ou dans certains cas ciblés pour un test en compétition. Mais le rapport reconnait que, « souvent, ces contrôles n’ont pas été effectués non plus» ».

Autre manquement relevé par le rapport de l’AMA: « Peu voire aucun contrôle sanguin dans plusieurs sports à haut risque ». En tête de liste, l’haltérophilie, une discipline où les médaillés des Jeux de Pékin 2008 et Londres 2012 disparaissent pourtant actuellement presque tous des palmarès.

En cause, une organisation minée par le manque de moyens et l’absence de compétences. Confrontés à des coupes budgétaires sévères, les Brésiliens ont taillé dans toutes les dépenses, y compris celles dédiées à la lutte antidopage. Selon l’AMA, beaucoup des failles sont dues à un manque d’expérience des personnels dédiés, aux ressources limitées et à d’autres difficultés de logistique. Il semblerait également que le comité d’organisation des Jeux de Rio 2016 ait peu, voire pas du tout, partagé ses informations avec les précédents organisateurs des Jeux olympiques.

 

Texte du Rapport https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/rio2016_io_team_report_26102016.pdf

 

Classé dans:Accords et politiques de coopération, Coopération judiciaire pénale, Coopération policière, Droit international, Lutte contre la criminalité organisée

Une revue de presse présentée en partenariat avec Le Courrier des Balkans.