On 10 April the European Parliament approved the New Pact on Migration and Asylum with the support of three hundred and one votes in favour, two hundred and sixty-nine against and fifty-one abstentions. The renewed legislation provides for a mechanism of so-called "mandatory solidarity" which should, in essence, commit all those countries, other than those of first arrival, to take an active part in the reception of certain migrants, and/or in providing them with support economical if necessary. However, without prejudice to the circumstance that the management of the asylum application would still be entrusted to the country of first arrival.
If this is what the new discipline is, and of this consistency, then it probably doesn't seem too new. Meanwhile, because, mutatis mutandis, and as promptly pointed out by many, the agreement reached does not in any way go beyond the highly contested Dublin system. Therefore, and consequently, because, even if everything is considered and conceded, far from favoring the position of the countries of so-called first arrival, the new rules seem rather aimed at preventing the phenomenon of secondary movement, i.e. "migration" from the country of first port of call to those of the European continent as a whole. Finally, because the new rules seem to shift the responsibilities linked to the management of migration back to the individual Member States, almost stripping away the principle of the Europeanisation of the phenomenon, if we may say so.
Probably nothing will really change, but, on the contrary, greater vigor is given to the principle that elects the so-called "first port of call" as the golden rule of the system. If the basic idea was to create an equal balance between the principle of so-called self-responsibility imposed by virtue of the Dublin Agreement on the qualified "first port of call" countries, and the broader principle of solidarity imposed on the remaining Member Countries, then, with good approximation, the Eurochamber should have filled in a precise and punctual manner the substantial contents of those obligations in order to avoid defections generated by questions of various interpretations of the general rule by Individuals. Saying it differently, and more simply, it is not necessary to bother Lapalisse to understand that the Border States, and among them Italy, even with the introduction of the new rules, will continue to be heavily burdened by any and all burdens of control and management in the absence, probably, of a guarantee of effective relocation of migrants throughout the European territory, such "transition" being inevitably dependent on the effective implementation of the new rules and on the concrete methods of implementation itself. Will the Member States be able to find the so-called square within two years? The true Reform, to put it clearly, should have led, unanimously, to the cancellation of the rules underlying the Dublin Agreement. It should have placed the Person and their fundamental rights at the centre. It should have had, as an inspiring cornerstone, the principle of hospitality in all its aspects. At present, and differently from what the supporters of the New Pact for Migration believe, the European Parliament, rather than seeing the effective role of the Union implemented in carrying out policies for the effective regulation of all forms of irregular migration in order to broaden the reception, seems rather to have wanted to reform the European system by strengthening the mechanisms for protecting the external borders of the European Union itself.
Years ago, it was the year 2013, at the time of the Letta Government, there was a lot of discussion about the further reform of the Dublin Regulation, and it was hoped that an agreement would be reached that would lead to a sort of "Dublin IV" which, however, was never achieved. given the irreconcilable positions of the various Member States. Probably, even today, we should have started again from there, since, if we consider it carefully, "Dublin III" already imposed solidarity obligations on the Member States which ranged from the redistribution of migrants to the financing of the countries of first arrival and which they were not characterized by their decisive nature. We then just have to wait for the evolution, in practical terms, of the New Pact on Migration.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer – Nuoro)
