Coping with a fundamental rights emergency – The situation of people crossing the Greek border in an irregular manner Voluntary Returns (AVR) programme. During the visit by the FRA in late January 2011, IOM had almost reached the set target of 400 individuals as per the resources allocated under the pilot.63 Moreover, by a tight management of this budget, IOM will have managed to return a total of 540 persons by the end of March 2011. A second call for proposals (EU Return Fund – annual programme 2009) was launched early 2011 with a closing date in late February, to which IOM applied. IOM further informed the FRA that they had 2,000 persons64 registered with them already for return. However, this second call for proposals amounted to €800,000 and covered only 500 individuals.65 The FRA received information by the Ministry of Citizen Protection that a third call from the 2010 annual programme would be issued later in the year for €5,000,000. There is concern regarding delays in the use of funds for voluntary return, as only early 2011 a call for proposal under the 2009 annual programme was issued. Inadequate management of voluntary returns can (a) create gaps in the continuity of AVR implementation, at a crucial moment when Greece is trying to show enhanced efforts to manage migration and (b) impact on the situation of those individuals who, after having taken an informed decision, would like to return home. The implementation of a return monitoring mechanism is also likely to pose operational challenges. The 2011 law (Article 24 (4)) puts the Ombudsman in charge of return monitoring. In the interview with the FRA, the Ombudsman office mentioned that it had little resources to undertake such a task and that it was therefore hoping to render the return monitoring operational through partnerships with NGOs and international organisations. However, this may be difficult, in the absence of Greece‐based NGOs and international organisations which have the appropriate capacity and expertise. At the same time, while return monitoring could qualify for funding under the EU Return Fund, the statute of the Ombudsman does not allow this body to have a special account for extra‐budget funding to be administered outside of current financial and administrative rules in force for public administrations.66 As a result, potential EU funding sources cannot be used to increase the capacity of the Ombudsman to carry out return monitoring functions. There is clearly a need for strengthening the capacity for assisted voluntary returns making use of the full potential of the EU Return Fund. Any obstacles in the use of relevant EU funding in line with Article 8 (6) of the Return Directive should be identified and removed. The 2011 law introduces an innovative tool to deal with irregular migrants whose removal is suspended or postponed. While in the past irregular migrants were given a 30‐day notice to leave the country, which led to many of them hiding in urban centres, the new law foresees the possibility to issue to these individuals a formal suspension of removal, entitling them to basic 63 64 65 66 Some 337 individuals were returned according to information received from the Ministry of Citizen Protection on 2 March 2011. According to the Ministry of Citizen Protection 1.717. See (in Greek): www.astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=4970&Itemid=442, at 3.2. The Greek Ombudsman is not entitled (as Ministries are) to request issuing of a Collective Decision for Projects (Συλλογική Απόφαση Έργου – ΣΑΕ/SAE), which would enable them to manage directly extra‐budget funding. The SAE has been created as a response to the need of absorbing directly EU funds through the Community Framework Programmes. It is a process initiated by the Ministry of Finance. 42