NGO Migrant Rescue Groups Say EC is Dragging Ass re: Italy’s “Distant Ports” Law
A group of NGOs that operate migrant search and rescue operations (SAR) in the Mediterranean Sea have filed a complaint with the European Commission regarding Italy’s despicable suppression of SAR efforts. Italy requires NGO migrant rescue boats to bypass drowning people in the Mediterranean if they have already rescued one group, and to instead immediately head to designated ports. Once a rescue boat has collected a group of migrants, it may not continue “patrolling” or even responding to other distress calls but must immediately proceed to an assigned “port of disembarkation.” Those ports are generally in Northern Italy, whilst migrants are typically rescued from that part of the Mediterranean closer to southern Italy. Hence, the “distant ports” policy. Italy impounds migrant rescue boats that violate the law. It even excludes NGO search and rescue aircraft from its coastal airports, making it more difficult for NGOs to search for drowning people. Here are excerpts from the complaint:
2. Law 15/2023 requires the rescuing vessels to reach the assigned port of disembarkation “without delay, immediately after carrying out the rescue operation”. In practice, this hinders effective SAR activities by NGO ships, including the possibility to continue active search (“patrolling”) after a first rescue and to respond to further distress calls after a port has been assigned by the Italian authorities. This requirement violates international law, which provides for the obligation to render assistance to any person in distress at sea regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which he/she was found.
. . .
4. The practice of the Italian authorities of assigning excessively distant ports from the rescue region, despite the existence of numerous closer ports, is contrary to relevant international law and EU Regulation no. 656/2014 that outline the so-called “place of safety”. According to these legal instruments, rescue operations are considered concluded when survivors have been delivered to a place of safety. States must coordinate and cooperate in rescue operations, so that survivors can be delivered to a ‘place of safety’ as soon as reasonably possible. States have to look out for, among others, the circumstances on board, not to cause undue delays, financial burdens or other difficulties for the rescue vessel, and to minimize the time spent by the survivors on the rescue vessel.
a. In practice this means survivors must be disembarked at a safe port in the shortest possible time. Italy’s practice is in violation of this, considering that it unreasonably prolongs the stay of the survivors on board the rescue vessel, thus jeopardizing the health and wellbeing of extremely vulnerable individuals; whilst imposing undue delay and financial burden on rescue vessels.
b. This practice also goes against the protection of human and fundamental rights of persons rescued at sea.
c. The decisions by the Italian authorities to assign distant ports are not justified. The Italian administration has so far not allowed the relevant NGOs to acquire any documentation related to how these decisions were reached. This additionally results in violation of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which requires administrations to provide reasons for their decisions and to allow access to administrative documentation.
d. That Italy has stated that it needs to operate a more equal distribution of migrants between the regions, as well as of the organization and logistical burdens related to the management of landings is untenable. The practice of assigning distant ports only to NGO SAR ships (and not to the Italian Coast Guard, Guardia di Finanza, or merchant vessels doing rescues), while numerous closer ports are available, effectively keeps SAR NGOs out of the area of operations for extended periods of time, as reaching the distant ports can take up to 4 days; the same amount of time to sail back south to reach the area of operations. in neither national, EU, nor international regulations).
5. NGO vessels engaged in SAR activities have been subjected to repeated inspections by Port State Control officers and prolonged administrative detentions, even in the absence of clear and proven dangers to persons, property or the environment. This practice stands in contrast to (i) what is established in international and European law on port state control of ships; and (ii) the specific conditions set by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 1/8/2022 (rendered in Cases C-14/21 and C-15/21) regarding the cases in which a State can proceed with an inspection and an administrative detention.
MSF asks the European Commission to put the Italian Law and practices under scrutiny and to intervene in these unjustified restrictions of NGO SAR work, for the preservation of human life as per European obligations and responsibilities.
The complaints were filed last summer, almost immediately after the law went into effect. The Commission is the European Union’s primary executive branch, responsible for ensuring that member nations comply with EU laws and policies. After more than a year passed without action, the NGOs accused the European Commission of dragging ass on the matter. This from Forbes:
Humanitarian and human rights groups have accused the European Commission of “failing” to investigate complaints concerning Italian government policy around search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. The groups argue that by delaying an investigation, the EC is in effect condoning Italy’s “systematic obstruction” of rescue work.
Five non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have lodged separate complaints to the EC about Italy’s policy and practice around search and rescue (SAR) operations. The complaints focus on a controversial law introduced in early 2023, which imposed new restrictions on how charity SAR organizations could operate. It dictated that after a rescue had been performed, typically of people trying to escape Libya and reach Europe in unseaworthy vessels, the rescue ship had to return immediately to disembark the rescuees in an assigned Italian port, without changing course or attempting to assist other vessels in distress.
This means rescue operators are forced to choose between neglecting other people that may be in danger (itself a violation of international maritime law), or being punished under the new Italian law. NGOs have already been punished dozens of times under the law, typically with fines and periods of imposed detention of their vessels.
At the same time, the Italian authorities have pursued an unofficial policy of assigning ports for disembarkation in Northern Italy, rather than in the South as was previously the norm. This has the practical effect of forcing NGO vessels to spend far more time and fuel shuttling to and from ports, and far less time in the ‘rescue zones’ where people are typically in distress. It also has the effect of raising costs for rescue NGOs, which typically run on charity funding.
The new law and practice appeared designed to deal with an issue long plaguing Italian policymakers. Amid anxieties over the amount of people arriving to Italy from Libya, Italian lawmakers, who had often been elected on anti-immigration platforms, were under pressure to reduce such arrivals. A typical practice before 2023 was simply to refuse to give rescue NGO ships clearance to disembark, a process known as the “stand-off.” Former Interior Minister (and now Infrastructure Minister) Matteo Salvini of the right-wing Lega Nord party had done this several times, but while it was often effective in forcing boats to go elsewhere, it tended to provoke tensions with other EU member states.
darryll k. jones