Coping with a fundamental rights emergency – The situation of people crossing the Greek border in an irregular manner European solidarity The implementation of the Greek Action Plan would be impossible without financial support by the European Union. Indeed, Commissioner Malmström announced that the European Commission would provide support to Greece for this purpose.46 Financial support would primarily be channelled through the EU funds described below and operational support provided through the EASO. The need for EU solidarity mechanisms is closely linked with the idea of a common Schengen area. People entering at one border crossing point are free to move and circulate across all Schengen States without border controls. Thus, Member States situated at the external land and sea borders of the EU have to allocate much more resources to border management than others. Moreover, Member States situated on the main entry routes are also likely to face a higher burden on their asylum procedures, regardless whether they are the final destination country or not. In that sense, the difficulties observed in Greece are not just a Greek problem, but an issue for the European Union. The Dublin II Regulation serves to determine which EU Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged by a third‐country national on the territory of one of the EU Member States.47 With some exceptions, applicants entering the EU in an irregular manner are to be examined by the country through which borders they have entered the EU. The regulation has thus far‐reaching consequences for a country that has practically become the single most important entry point of irregular migratory flows into the EU. In 2010, Greece received 6,822 requests (in 2009, 9,506 requests) to take back asylum seekers who lodged an asylum application in other EU Member States. While actual transfers were substantially smaller (1,202 persons in 2009 and 949 persons in 2010), they continued until late 2010,48 when the European Court of Human Rights called for a halt to transfers to Greece.49 Transfers were reduced or suspended primarily as a result of national or supra‐national court orders, rather than out of considerations of solidarity in light of the overburdened asylum system in Greece. In order to alleviate the burden of some Member States, EU solidarity mechanisms were set up in the past. These can essentially be grouped into three categories: (i) financial solidarity; 46 See Joint statement by Mr Christos Papoutsis, Minister of Citizen Protection of Greece and Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner in charge of Home Affairs: Greece and the Commission agree to enhance cooperation on reforming the Greek asylum system, 27 Sept. 2010 available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/450. 47 Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third‐country national (OJ 2003 L 50). 48 According to information received from the Ministry of Citizen Protection, 139 individuals were returned to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation from 1 September to 31 December 2010. Most were returned from Hungary (27), Norway (22), Austria (18), Germany (16), Denmark (12) and Switzerland (11) and France (10). 49 A number of letters were sent by the ECtHR to EU Member States indicating that the Court would grant interim measures to individuals being returned to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. See, for example, the letter to Belgium mentioned in a press release on 20 October 2010 at www.melchiorwathelet.be/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=204&cntnt01dateformat=%25d%2F%25m %2F%25Y&cntnt01returnid=313&hl=fr_FR or the letter to the Netherlands on 30 September mentioned in www.rijksoverheid.nl /documenten‐en‐publicaties/kamerstukken/2010/10/13/5671201‐overdrachten‐aan‐griekenland‐in‐het‐kader‐van‐de‐dublin‐ verordening.html. 36