The Problem of the Criminalisation of Humanitarian Aid in the Context of the 2002 European Union Directive and Framework Decision on Strengthening the Criminal Framework to Prevent the Facilitation of Unauthorised Entry, Transit and Residence
Meral Balcı, Ceren KaragözoğluThe legal regulations the European Union (EU) has adopted to prevent illegal migration are becoming increasingly harsh. The practice that has developed within the framework of the regulations weakens the legal legitimacy of the measures taken. In particular, trying to control the illegal entry or illegal stay of foreigners in a country through the tools of criminal law causes problems in many respects. The EU Council Directive 2002/90/EC, referred to here as the Facilitators Directive, is one of the most important examples of this. This study will examine the acts that constitute a criminal offense under the Facilitators Directive within the framework of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants, especially regarding the ability to punish humanitarian assistance. In determining the framework of the smuggling of migrants in terms of criminal law, this article will attempt to put forth an approach based on the principles of criminal law and human rights. The intensity of the sanctions imposed on illegal migration from the perspective of the protection of state borders results in the violation of state obligations arising from international conventions to which states are a party. Therefore, not expanding the limits of criminal law’s ability to intervene in immigration law is important, being an area where administrative regulations are effective.
İzinsiz Giriş, Geçiş ve İkametin Kolaylaştırılmasını Önlemek İçin Cezai Çerçevenin Güçlendirilmesine İlişkin 2002 tarihli Avrupa Birliği Direktifi ve Çerçeve Kararı Bağlamında İnsani Yardımın Cezalandırılabilirliği Sorunu
Meral Balcı, Ceren KaragözoğluYasa dışı göçü önlemek amacıyla Avrupa Birliği tarafından kabul edilen hukuki düzenlemeler, gittikçe daha sert hale gelmekte ve düzenlemeler çerçevesinde gelişen uygulama alınan tedbirlerin hukuki meşruiyetini zayıflatmaktadır. Özellikle yabancıların ülkeye yasa dışı girişi veya ülkede yasa dışı kalışı meselesinin ceza hukuku araçlarıyla kontrol altında tutulmaya çalışılması birçok açıdan sorun ortaya çıkmasına neden olmaktadır. 2002 tarihli Kolaylaştırıcılar Direktifi bunun en önemli örneklerindendir. Çalışmada söz konusu Direktif kapsamında suç teşkil eden fiiller, Sınıraşan Örgütlü Suçlara Karşı Birleşmiş Milletler Sözleşmesi’ne Ek Kara, Deniz ve Hava Yoluyla Göçmen Kaçakçılığına Karşı Protokol çerçevesinde özellikle insani yardımın cezalandırılabilirliği konusu üzerinden ele alınacaktır. Göçmen kaçakçılığının ceza hukuku bakımından çerçevesinin belirlenmesinde ceza hukuku esasları ve insan hakları hukuku temelli bir yaklaşım ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır. Zira yasa dışı göçe yönelik uygulanan yaptırımların yoğunluğunun, salt devlet sınırlarının korunması perspektifiyle ele alınması, insan hakları hukuku, mülteci hukuku ve deniz hukuku başta olmak üzere devletin taraf olduğu uluslararası sözleşmelerden doğan yükümlülüklerinin ihlali ile sonuçlanmaktadır. Dolayısıyla idari düzenlemelerin etkin olduğu bir alan olan göç hukukunda ceza hukuku müdahalesinin sınırlarının genişletilmemesi önem arz etmektedir.
The problem of illegal migration is seen as an area that needs to be fought against hard, especially in Europe. In relation to this, the EU adopted the Council Directive 2002/90/EC (the Facilitators Directive) and framework Decision 2002/946/JHA in 2002. This Directive is important as it significantly expands the scope of the offense of smuggling migrants. The Directive regulates different acts facilitating illegal entry or transit across the territory of a Member State, as well as illegal residency in the territory of a Member State. Each Member State is to adopt appropriate sanctions against any person who intentionally assists someone who is not a national of a Member State in entering or transiting across the territory of a Member State in breach of the laws of the State concerned regarding the entry or transit of aliens. According to the Directive, the purpose for which the person who commits the acts of facilitating illegal entry or transit does not matter. On the other hand, the Directive adopted the criterion of financial gain for the act of facilitating illegal residence in a Member State. The Directive also gives Member States discretion to not penalize acts of facilitating illegal entry and transit when humanitarian aid is involved. These regulations pose problems both in terms of criminal law principles and human rights.
The study will first determine the scope of criminal acts in terms of migrant smuggling by taking into consideration the Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (United Nations General Assembly, 2000), which is an important international convention, as a guide in determining the scope of the crime of migrant smuggling. Article 6-1(a) of the Protocol states that each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally and in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit for the smuggling of migrants. Thus, the Protocol regulates punishable smuggling of migrants more narrowly than the Facilitators Directive. The criterion of financial or other material benefit constitutes an important limit in the crime of smuggling of migrants. Article 5 of the Protocol also states that migrants should not be penalized in the context of migrant smuggling. Migration law is a field shaped mainly by administrative regulations. Therefore, the scope of criminal regulations in this field should be narrow. These regulations are also a consequence of the principle of proportionality and the principle of last resort. The criterion to be taken as a basis in determining the offense within the scope of migrant smuggling is that the criminal acts constitute an injustice worthy of criminal law sanctions, taking into account the principle that punishment is a last resort. The fact that the Directive leaves it to the discretion of EU Member States not to criminalize humanitarian aid is problematic in this respect. Moreover, the Directive does not define humanitarian aid, which has led Member States to apply different definitions. This is incompatible with the principle of certainty, which is more important in criminal law.
The provisions of the Directive should also be noted to be incompatible with Member States’ obligations under international law. The need to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of migrants carries the regulations on migrant smuggling beyond the criminal policy and constitutes the limits of the criminal policy as adopted by the states. The components of the limits are the international conventions that set the general framework for the definition of migrant smuggling and the obligations of Member States in this regard, the principle of non-refoulement, refugee law, and the maritime law conventions that envisage the rescue of persons in danger at sea, as well as human rights conventions that envisage meeting common minimum standards for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in universal and regional contexts. For this reason, legal regulations on migrant smuggling should be regulated in line with the obligations of Member States arising from international law. Taking into account the obligations undertaken by Member States under international conventions also strengthens the legal legitimacy of legal regulations on migrant smuggling.
