Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο 2014-2019 Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού 27.9.2016 ΕΓΓΡΑΦΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΣ σχετικά με την ειδική έκθεση αριθ. 9/2016 του ΕΕΣ (απαλλαγή 2015): Οι δαπάνες της ΕΕ στο πλαίσιο της εξωτερικής μεταναστευτικής πολιτικής στις χώρες της Νότιας Μεσογείου και της ανατολικής εταιρικής σχέσης έως το 2014 Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού Εισηγήτριες: Iris Hoffmann, Marian-Jean Marinescu DT\1105116.docx PE589.417v01-00 Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία
Introduction The external dimension of the EU s common migration policy aims to promote effective management of migration flows, fair treatment of non-eu nationals residing legally in Member States and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, irregular immigration and trafficking in human beings and this, in partnership with migrant's countries of origin and transit. The EU's overarching policy framework for political dialogue and cooperation on external migration is based since 2011 on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) adopted by the Council in May 2012 and reiterated in April 2014 1. Although the GAMM was global in scope, the European Neighbourhood countries 2 were its first priority with the aim to "move towards strong, close partnerships that build on mutual trust and shared interests, paving the way for further regional integration". The GAMM is implemented via varied institutional and financial instruments notably regional / bilateral policy dialogue, Mobility Partnerships, visa facilitation and readmission agreements with non-eu countries, Frontex and financial contributions to non-eu administrations and international organisations. This report deals with the two main financing instruments supporting external migration policy in six out of the 11 Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries (Algeria, Georgia, Libya, Moldova, Morocco and Ukraine), the Thematic Programme for Migration and Asylum (TPMA), and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 3, both established for the 2007-2013 period. Over this period, the estimation of amounts contracted for external migration spending was 1.4 billion euro but financial data were only available for the TPMA with payments of 304.3 million euro. Audit Scope and approach The Court examined whether EU spending from the TPMA and the ENPI, both established for the 2007-2013 period, in the area of migration had clear objectives and whether it had been effective and well-coordinated in six of the 11 countries of the Southern Mediterranean and Eastern partnership. In particular, the Court checked whether migration spending: a) pursued a clear and coherent set of objectives - accompanied by an effective monitoring system - which responded to well-identified needs and priorities in the Neighbourhood countries; b) was achieving its objectives in the Neighbourhood countries; 1 The GAMM is not legally binding and identifies four general thematic priorities (a) better organising legal migration and fostering well-managed mobility, (b) preventing and combatting irregular migration and eradicating trafficking in human beings, (c) maximising the development impact of migration and mobility and (d) promoting international protection and enhancing the external dimension of asylum. The respect for human rights as a cross-cutting priority is also included in this policy framework. 2 For the southern Mediterranean (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) and for the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). 3 The other programmes that also contribute to the external migration policy are the Development Cooperation Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Instrument for Stability, The European Development Fund and the Instrument for Pre-accession assistance. PE589.417v01-00 2/2 DT\1105116.docx
c) had been well coordinated among EU bodies and with Member States. The audit does not cover the developments in migration after 2014 nor the EU s reaction to the current refugee crisis. The Court based its audit work on three sources of data: a) interviews and the collection of information from the Commission and three countries (Algeria, Georgia and Morocco) covering 12 projects, with visits to EU delegations, the responsible national and local authorities and, where possible, final beneficiaries and with other stakeholders, such as Member State representatives, international organisations, civil society and think-tanks; b) a desk review of 11 projects implemented in Libya, Moldova and Ukraine; c) documentary reviews of policy, programming and project documents with a questionnaire sent to 11 Member State administrations and a review of the related literature and relevant evaluations. The 23 projects reviewed represent a total contract value of 89 million euro on a total contracted amount of 742 million euro and were selected on the basis of the amount of expenditure, balanced coverage of the various thematic priorities of the GAMM, location, project status (closed or ongoing), whether the assistance supported mobility partnerships. The Court also carried out the audit against the backdrop of the new spending regulations adopted for the 2014-2020 period. Court's Findings and Observations I - Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country needs and monitoring instruments need improving The Court found that EU s external migration spending was implemented through various instruments like the TPMA, the ENPI and other instruments governed by their own general policy objectives, which were not always interlinked. Moreover, it was not clearly established what the existing objectives were intended to achieve at EU level with respect to external migration as a clear strategy or monitoring arrangements by which to identify the scale of the contribution were missing. Likewise, the identification and definition of partner countries needs required a better attention insofar as the general objectives of the thematic programme were not broken down into operational goals. This was also combined with a lack of specialized migration officials in EU delegations to specify countries needs. With regard to monitoring and assessment instruments, further improving was necessary as the Court found little evidence of precise and systemic indicators with a lack of consistency between the indicators used at different policy levels (strategic framework, budget and Commission activity reports): a) At the strategic level, the Court considered the arrangements for monitoring the GAMM as very broadly defined with no assigned indicators, reference values or DT\1105116.docx 3/3 PE589.417v01-00
targets for assessing the achievement of objectives. The Court made a similar point for several examples of strategy papers 1. The same confusion was also noted by the Court in the programme indicators listed in budgets and DG DEVCO management plans and annual activity reports with little consistency and stability over time between these indicators and those in the TPMA strategic framework 2. The Court acknowledged some improvements with the definition of a new set of indicators for 2014-2020 but persistent weaknesses remain such as the absence of baseline and target values. b) At the projects level, the Court retrieved the same shortcomings and inconsistencies between indicators defined at project level and the DG DEVCO s managing excel table, the AAR or the TPMA strategic framework and, thus hindering the overall effectiveness for measuring the results and progress achieved. The reliability of the DEVCO excel table was questioned by the Court as the results presented were incomplete 3. The Court observed too for the results on the TMPA, that the compilation of data included in the AAR was not part of a continuous information-gathering system, that there was no matrix correlating objectives to indicators between the projects and the AAR and finally, that the AAR was only covering the budget devoted to the TPMA (no others documents provided consolidated results for all spending instruments on external migration policy). Moreover, the Court could not established exactly to what degree EU funds were assigned (through the TPMA) to the main priorities related to external migration measures in Neighbourhood countries 4. The Court found difficult to do so insofar data provided by DG DEVCO and DG NEAR did not provide details of actual payments, the amounts recorded for the 2007-2013 period came from seven EU spending instruments 5 and data on areas of expenditure other than the TPMA were incomplete and not regularly updated since 2012. The Court also noted weaknesses related to the encoding in the financial information system (CRIS) due to the lack of CRIS data codes or specific codes for migration in public development aid to categorise contracts. With regard to the extent of the TPMA spending to the European Neighbourhood (the first priority of the GAMM), the Court estimated that approximately half of the funding (i.e. 42%) were allocated to the EU Neighbourhood. It was also noted by the Court that security and border protection prevailed and superseded other objectives highlighted by the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, namely the development of the link between migration and development. 1 Specific objectives, expected results and performance indicators were to be defined for the TPMA strategy papers, the nine indicators related to the objective to strengthening links between migration and development were too complex to make possible the monitoring and evaluation of this objective. 2 In DG DEVCO s 2011 annual activity report (AAR), the indicator of the number of local businesses supported by EU-funded programmes did not correspond to the indicators in the strategic framework of the TPMA and was not used in the 2012 and 2013 AARs. 3 For 18 audited projects (of 23 in the Court s sample) included in the excel table, results were fully included in three cases, partially included in eight, and not shown at all in the remaining seven. 4 Over the 2007-2013 period, the EU budget for funding external migration funding was approximately 1.4 billion euro. 5 The TPMA, the non-tpma part of the DCI, the EDF, the ENPI, the EIDHR, the Instrument for Stability and the IPA. PE589.417v01-00 4/4 DT\1105116.docx
Likewise, the Court finally estimated that no critical mass of financial resources was ensured as the TMPA covered a large geographical area and a wide range of interventions differing considerably in nature and scope, this situation limiting the EU s ability to ensure its intervention a real incentive effect in non-eu countries. II - Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU s external migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the southern Mediterranean and the Eastern partnership countries Based on an examination of selected projects, the Court concluded that the effectiveness of the EU's external migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries could be improved. The Court pointed out that it was often difficult to measure the results as the project objectives were often set in general terms and the indicators often failed to reflect the achievement of objectives. The projects reviewed showed that eight projects achieved their planned results and thirteen projects partially achieved their planned objectives. Moreover, it also appeared from the review that for a small number of cases that political instability hindered the project effectiveness and that some other projects were more oriented towards Member states interests. As regards the delays of project implementation, the situation is equally mixed with nine projects implemented within planned deadlines, five with a delay of less than twelve months and five others with a delay of more than twelve months. Besides the aforementioned weaknesses, the Court identified a limited number of good practices 1 i.e. cases with a well-designed project, an adequate response to local needs, a limited number of operational objectives, concrete expected results, quantifiable indicators and detailed reporting. The Court also assessed the effectiveness issues in three key-areas namely (a) the link between migration and development, (b) the support measures for return and readmission and (c) the protection of human rights: a) the Court examined the flagship project of the Thematic Programme in this area i.e. the Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI) with a 15 million euro budget. The Court found that the objectives 2 were too vague to be properly assessed, the indicators did not clearly show how the positive impact of migration on development could be increased or what specific results could be achieved in terms of quality and quantity. The sample of projects analysed by the Court under this JMDI pilot Initiative revealed mixed results: too ambitious objectives, unclear link between migration and development, projects that were not all sustainable, projects with limited impact and viability and, focusing more on development than migration. b) on the support measures for return and readmission, five of the 23 projects under review related to readmission 3 were qualified by the Court as often rather small and limited in their results and effectiveness 1. 1 The example of good practice mentioned by the Court is the project entitled Promoting respect for sub- Saharan migrants rights in Morocco which began in January 2013 with an allocation of 2 million euro. 2 The purpose of this project is to strengthen the positive impact of migration through the engagement of smallscale actors and dissemination of global best practices among migration and development practitioners. 3 These projects were worth a total of 20.5 million euro out of which 16.34 mio euro under the ENPI and 4.19 DT\1105116.docx 5/5 PE589.417v01-00
c) for the human rights protection, the Court found that most of the audited projects addressed directly or indirectly human rights in their objectives. However, the Court pointed out two cases i.e. the Ukrainian reception centres where respectively the treatment of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in Ukraine has been repeatedly criticised by international organisations and civil society and the Sahara Med project (10 million euro in funding) for which no precautionary measures to guarantee respect for migrants rights were included, either through activities or the purchase of equipment. III - A difficult coordination between several partners at different levels The EU's external migration spending was implemented by a wide range of stakeholders. The Court emphasized the complexity of the governance framework for the implementation of migration policy at the EU level with weaknesses not only in the links among the Commission s directorates/departments but also between the Commission in Brussels and the EU delegations in partner countries. Even though the need to improve internal coordination between the Commission s various key-departments (international cooperation and development, neighbourhood and enlargement, foreign affairs and migration and home affairs, EU delegations and EU agencies) was reiterated, the Court identified no workable strategy or mechanism to ensure coordination between policy areas, funds or DGs. Moreover, the Court found no funding overview of the General Approach to Migration and Mobility defining who finances or how funds are assigned. The Court considered too that a better involvement of EU delegations in migration issues was necessary, particularly in the projects planning to allow both a better understanding of partner s country expectations or specific situation and enhanced information flows between Headquarters and the delegations. Improved coordination on Mobility partnerships was also mentioned by the Court in order to ensure that Member states regularly update and share their partnership scoreboards and inform the EU agency Frontex. Summary of the Commission and EEAS Replies The Commission and the EEAS considered they were acting in a complex and ever-changing environment as migration and asylum is a multifaceted, complex and constantly evolving policy area at both EU and international level. In this context of an unprecedented refugee and migratory crisis, migration policy is very much readjusting its priorities, reinforcing its features at EU level and continuously adapting to changing circumstances. As a result, it is an area that requires similarly complex and multidimensional structures for its implementation. For the Commission and the EEAS considered that this political, legal, operational and budgetary context is not taken sufficiently into account by the Court in the report. The Commission agreed that it is difficult to easily establish the total amount of expenditure charged to the budget and whether this was directed in line with the intended geographical mio euro concerning Migration and Asylum thematic programme. 1 The reasons invoked being that the policy of readmission being wrongly perceived by some partner countries, the lack of awareness on the assistance available for readmission and Member states do not effectively prepare migrants for their return. PE589.417v01-00 6/6 DT\1105116.docx
and thematic priorities. The Commission will further improve the overall monitoring and evaluation framework in this complex policy area, still ensuring that the intended geographic and thematic priorities, according to the focal areas, are identified by the relevant instruments. At the individual level, all projects funded by EU financing instruments include indicators that are monitored throughout the lifetime of each project. It was also stated that migration is a politically sensitive policy area cutting across a number of sectors and involving a wide range of different stakeholders (e.g. European Agencies, IOM, UNHCR), within and outside the EU institutions. The management of EU external migration policy and cooperation necessarily mirrors this situation. Efforts have been made recently to further improve the coordination between the Commission's Directorates-General and with the EEAS, as well as with EU Member States, and a number of coordination mechanisms have been put in place for this purpose. The recent European Agenda on Migration underline the need to further strengthen these efforts. Court's recommendations The Court issued five recommendations in order to develop clear and measurable objectives to be implemented by a coherent set of EU funding instruments supported by effective monitoring and evaluation, and by an appropriate information system. Governance arrangements must be simpler and better coordinated. 1. Clarify objectives, develop, expand and improve the performance measurement framework and focus available financial resources on clearly defined and quantified target priorities; 2. Develop an appropriate coding in the Commission s information systems; 3. Improve project preparation and selection; 4. Further consolidate the link between development and migration; 5. Internal and external dialogue to improve coordination. Συστάσεις των συνεισηγητριών για πιθανή ενσωμάτωση στην ετήσια έκθεση απαλλαγής της Επιτροπής 1. Χαιρετίζει την ειδική έκθεση με θέμα τις δαπάνες της ΕΕ στο πλαίσιο της εξωτερικής μεταναστευτικής πολιτικής στις χώρες της Νότιας Μεσογείου και της ανατολικής εταιρικής σχέσης έως το 2014, και εκθέτει τις παρατηρήσεις και συστάσεις του κατωτέρω 2. επισημαίνει την κριτική προσέγγιση που ακολουθεί το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο και τις πολυάριθμες ελλείψεις που εκθέτει το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο, ιδίως δε την έλλειψη αποτελεσματικότητας όσον αφορά τη χρήση των χορηγούμενων κονδυλίων 3. καλεί την Επιτροπή να αξιολογήσει όλες τις παρατηρήσεις του Συνεδρίου και να λάβει τα ζητούμενα μέτρα προκειμένου να μην επαναληφθούν ορισμένα λάθη στη μεταναστευτική πολιτική κατά την περίοδο 2014-2020 ζητεί την εφαρμογή όλων των συστάσεων του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου DT\1105116.docx 7/7 PE589.417v01-00
4. πιστεύει ότι η εκτέλεση των κονδυλίων θα πρέπει να γίνεται με γνώμονα τη βελτίωση των συστημάτων παρακολούθησης και αξιολόγησης με βάση δείκτες αναφοράς, προοδευτικά κριτήρια αναφοράς και μετρήσιμους και ρεαλιστικούς στόχους καλεί την Επιτροπή να αναθεωρήσει το σύνολο των δεικτών, κριτηρίων αναφοράς και στόχων που περιλαμβάνουν τα τρέχοντα προγράμματα για τη μετανάστευση 5. θεωρεί ότι πρέπει να επιδιώκεται συστηματικά μια ολοκληρωμένη και συντονισμένη αντίδραση, στον βαθμό που η μεταναστευτική κρίση θέτει πολλές προκλήσεις που υπερβαίνουν τα τομεακά και θεσμικά όρια 6. ζητεί τη συνεχή βελτίωση της στρατηγικής κατανόησης και του πλαισίου εξωτερικών πολιτικών και πολιτικών επιλογών της Ένωσης σε συνεργασία με τους βασικούς παράγοντες, προκειμένου να εξασφαλίζεται σαφήνεια, καθώς και μια συντονισμένη και συνεκτική κινητοποίηση των μηχανισμών εξωτερικής μετανάστευσης βραχυπρόθεσμα, μεσοπρόθεσμα και μακροπρόθεσμα, εντός ή εκτός του πλαισίου του προϋπολογισμού της Ένωσης 7. καλεί την Επιτροπή να εργαστεί εποικοδομητικά για τη βελτίωση του συντονισμού μεταξύ των μέσων, των μηχανισμών και των ενδιαφερόμενων, για την πρόληψη της μεταναστευτικής κρίσης 8. καλεί όλους τους βασικούς ενδιαφερόμενους να εξετάζουν και να τηρούν κατάλληλα την ισορροπία μεταξύ της ευελιξίας στις παρεμβάσεις, της συμπληρωματικότητας, του ύψους και της αναγκαίας μόχλευσης των κονδυλίων, καθώς και των ενδεχόμενων συνεργειών και της συνολικής προσθετικότητας των παρεμβάσεων της Ένωσης 9. πιστεύει, στο πλαίσιο αυτό, ότι πρέπει να δοθεί η δέουσα προσοχή στην κατάλληλη στοχοθέτηση της βοήθειας στα διαφορετικά και εξελισσόμενα ζητήματα της εξωτερικής μετανάστευσης, και παράλληλα να εξασφαλιστεί η επάρκεια της εποπτείας των εκταμιευόμενων κονδυλίων, προκειμένου να αποφευχθεί ο κίνδυνος υπεξαίρεσης κονδυλίων και διπλής χρηματοδότησης 10. θεωρεί ότι είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη, η απαίτηση για καλύτερα αποτελέσματα να συμβιβάζεται με τη διαθεσιμότητα επαρκών κονδυλίων ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται υψηλό επίπεδο φιλοδοξίας κατά τον σχεδιασμό της συνολικής και βιώσιμης απόκρισης της Ένωσης στις υφιστάμενες και τις μελλοντικές προκλήσεις που προκαλεί η μεταναστευτική κρίση πιστεύει ότι οι διαπραγματεύσεις για την ενδιάμεση αναθεώρηση του ΠΔΠ αποτελούν το κατάλληλο φόρουμ για την αντιμετώπιση αυτών των προκλήσεων 11. θεωρεί ότι, πέρα από το χρηματοδοτικό κενό, ο υφιστάμενος κατακερματισμός μέσων με δικούς τους ειδικούς στόχους αλλά χωρίς αλληλοσύνδεση εμποδίζει την κοινοβουλευτική εποπτεία επί του τρόπου διάθεσης των κονδυλίων και τον προσδιορισμό των ευθυνών, με αποτέλεσμα να καθίσταται δύσκολο να εκτιμώνται σαφώς τα ποσά που πράγματι δαπανήθηκαν για την υποστήριξη της εξωτερικής δράσης για τη μετανάστευση εκφράζει την αποδοκιμασία του για το γεγονός ότι αυτό έχει ως συνέπεια την έλλειψη αποτελεσματικότητας, διαφάνειας και λογοδοσίας κρίνει αναγκαίο να επανεστιαστούν οι τρόποι χρήσης των υφιστάμενων μέσων πολιτικής με μια σαφή και ανανεωμένη διάρθρωση στόχων, ώστε να αυξηθεί η συνολική τους αποτελεσματικότητα και προβολή PE589.417v01-00 8/8 DT\1105116.docx
12. θεωρεί ότι οι ενωσιακές δαπάνες για την εξωτερική μετανάστευση πρέπει να εκταμιεύονται αποτελεσματικότερα και να πληρούν κριτήρια «προστιθέμενης αξίας», προκειμένου να προσφέρονται στους ανθρώπους επαρκείς συνθήκες διαβίωσης στις χώρες καταγωγής τους και να αποτραπεί η αύξηση των ροών της οικονομικής μετανάστευσης 13. καλεί την Επιτροπή να παρακολουθεί, να αξιολογεί και να επανεξετάζει εποικοδομητικά τις δραστηριότητες του Ευρωπαϊκού Οργανισμού Συνοριοφυλακής και Ακτοφυλακής, που πρόκειται να αρχίσουν τον Οκτώβριο του 2016 14. χαιρετίζει τη δημιουργία καταπιστευματικών ταμείων της ΕΕ και επιδοκιμάζει την πρόθεση να διατίθενται τα κονδύλια ταχύτερα και με μεγαλύτερη ευελιξία σε περιπτώσεις έκτακτης ανάγκης, και να συγκεντρώνονται διάφορες πηγές χρηματοδότησης ώστε να αντιμετωπίζονται όλες οι παράμετροι οποιωνδήποτε κρίσεων 15. επισημαίνει ότι τα καταπιστευματικά ταμεία αποτελούν μέρος μιας ειδικής λύσης που δείχνει ότι ο προϋπολογισμός της Ένωσης και το Πολυετές Δημοσιονομικό Πλαίσιο δεν διαθέτουν τους πόρους και την ευελιξία που απαιτούνται για μια ταχεία και ολοκληρωμένη προσέγγιση σε σοβαρές κρίσεις εκφράζει τη δυσαρέσκειά του για το γεγονός ότι με τον τρόπο αυτόν παρακάμπτεται η αρμόδια για τον προϋπολογισμό αρχή και υπονομεύεται η ενότητα του προϋπολογισμού 16. εκφράζει την ικανοποίησή του για την πρόταση της Επιτροπής στο πλαίσιο της ενδιάμεσης αναθεώρησης του ΠΔΠ, να δημιουργηθεί νέο αποθεματικό κρίσεων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που να χρηματοδοτείται από αποδεσμευόμενες πιστώσεις, ως πρόσθετος μηχανισμός ταχείας αντίδρασης σε καταστάσεις έκτακτης ανάγκης στην ΕΕ καλεί το Συμβούλιο να υιοθετήσει πλήρως την πρόταση αυτή 17. επισημαίνει ότι είναι σημαντικό να υπάρχουν επαρκείς μηχανισμοί ελέγχου, προκειμένου να εξασφαλίζεται πολιτικός έλεγχος της εκτέλεσης του προϋπολογισμού στο πλαίσιο της διαδικασίας απαλλαγής καλεί την Επιτροπή να λάβει άμεσα μέτρα για την αύξηση της συμμετοχής της αρμόδιας για τον προϋπολογισμό και για τον έλεγχο του προϋπολογισμού αρχής και για την καλύτερη συμμόρφωση των καταπιστευματικών ταμείων και άλλων μηχανισμών προς τους δημοσιονομικούς κανόνες, ιδίως μέσω της εμφάνισής τους στον προϋπολογισμό της Ένωσης 18. εκφράζει τη δυσαρέσκειά του για το γεγονός ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή δεν έδωσε λεπτομέρειες για την εκτέλεση των πληρωμών, και καλεί την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να λάβει τα απαραίτητα μέτρα για να ενισχυθεί και να απλουστευτεί η κωδικοποίηση του συστήματος οικονομικής πληροφόρησης, ώστε να εντοπίζονται και να παρακολουθούνται καλύτερα τα ποσά που προορίζονται για την εξωτερική δράση για τη μετανάστευση 19. θεωρεί ότι η προληπτική διαχείριση θα ήταν αποτελεσματικότερη από μια πολιτική απλής απόκρισης όπως η διαχείριση κρίσεων, σε μακροπρόθεσμη βάση 20. υπενθυμίζει τη στάση του Κοινοβουλίου έναντι μιας ολιστικής προσέγγισης της μετανάστευσης με βάση ένα νέο μίγμα πολιτικής συμπεριλαμβανομένης της ενίσχυσης της διασύνδεσης μεταξύ μετανάστευσης και ανάπτυξης με την αντιμετώπιση των βαθύτερων αιτίων της μετανάστευσης και ταυτόχρονα την υποστήριξη μιας αλλαγής στον τρόπο χρηματοδότησης της μεταναστευτικής κρίσης. DT\1105116.docx 9/9 PE589.417v01-00