CENTRAL EUROPE: Austria to close last remaining arrival centre for Ukrainians ― Protests against German chancellor’s migration comments ― Polish PM criticised for comments about future of ECHR ― Polish court rejects complaint from pushback victim ― Swi…

• The last remaining arrival centre for displaced Ukrainians in Austria is due to close at the end of 2025.
• Demonstrations have taken place in several German cities in response to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s comments on migration.
• Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been criticised for comments he made about the future of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• A Polish court has rejected a complaint from an asylum applicant who was prevented from claiming international protection at the Poland-Belarus border.
• The Swiss government has announced that it is preparing to introduce legislation that will prevent most asylum applicants and other people on the move from travelling outside Switzerland.
• The Swiss government is planning to tighten its rules on temporary protection.

The last remaining arrival centre for displaced Ukrainians in Austria is due to close at the end of 2025. The Quartier Schossberg centre, which is situated in Vienna and run by the NGO Volkshilfe, is able to accommodate more than 200 people and has been “operating at full capacity for some time”. Since opening, it has provided assistance to 8,900 people. According to the Kronen newspaper, if nothing changes before the centre closes, newly arrived people “will be without shelter for several days unless that can find accommodation on their own, such as with relatives or friends”. Approximately 2,000 Ukrainians arrived in Austria in September and almost 10,800 are currently receiving basic support in Vienna.

Demonstrations have taken place in several German cities in response to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s comments on migration. On 26 October, approximately 2,600 people protested in Hamburg over Merz’s ‘cityscape’ remark  while smaller demonstrations took place the following day in Bonn and Magdeburg. On 27 October, around 2,000 people protested in Leipzig under the slogan “Clear stance against Merz! The cityscape remains diverse”. Elsewhere, a group of sixty high-profile women sent an open letter to Merz in which they called on him to address real public safety concerns following his suggestion that “daughters” would have understood his comments. “We are happy to talk about safety for daughters, i.e. women,” they wrote, adding: “However, we want to do it seriously, and not use it as a cheap excuse to justify racist narratives”.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been criticised for comments he made about the future of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In an interview with the Sunday Times newspaper which was published on 26 October, Tusk said that countries wanted to deport “convicted criminals, rapists or terrorists” but that they were sometimes unable to do so “because of these very traditional verdicts from the courts that human rights are much more important than security”. Speaking about possible reform of the ECHR, he told the British newspaper: “If the 46 signatories cannot agree on reform, then withdrawal is a reasonable solution”. Tusk’s comments were immediately criticised by opposition politicians and human rights NGOs. Left MP Anna-Maria Żukowska accused him of wanting to “break with the foundation of modern Europe”, while Monika Gąsiorowska, a Warsaw-based human rights lawyer, advised him to “familiarise himself with the values and goals of the founders of the Council of Europe and what the Convention was intended to protect against”. ECRE member organisation the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) issued a statement in which it emphasised that “attacks on the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be justified by the difficulties European states currently face in the area of migration”. Responding to a government spokesperson’s claim that Tusk’s words “did not refer to Poland”, HFHR wrote: “Even if they are considered a strictly political statement, and not a serious vote to allow withdrawal from the Convention, they could have very negative long-term consequences. They lead to the normalisation of arguments and slogans that have until now been associated with extremist and populist movements”.

A Polish court has rejected a complaint from an asylum applicant who was prevented from claiming international protection at the Poland-Belarus border. The case related to a Sudanese man who entered Poland irregularly from Belarus in May and tried to submit an asylum application but was prevented from doing so by a border guard who refused to accept it. With the support of HFHR, the man submitted a complaint against the decision but in early October, the provincial court in Białystok upheld it. Judge Barbara Romanczuk, who presided over the case, said: “The behaviour of a foreigner who uses refugee law in a manner inconsistent with its purpose does not deserve protection,” adding: “Such behaviour should be considered a gross abuse of the law, unacceptable in a democratic state governed by the rule of law and in European legal culture”.

The Swiss government has announced that it is preparing to introduce legislation that will prevent most asylum applicants and other people on the move from travelling outside Switzerland. Under the proposed changes, which were agreed in 2021 but never implemented, with the exception of Ukrainians, people seeking asylum and people who have already been granted protection will only be allowed to travel to their home countries in exceptional cases such as the death of a close relative. In addition, they will also be forbidden from travelling to any other countries, including those that are part of the Schengen Area. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has described the planned travel ban as “disproportionate” and said that it failed to take into account the reality of families who had been separate for various reasons and who might only be able to reunite in third states.

The Swiss government is planning to tighten its rules on temporary protection. As of 1 November, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) will classify Ukrainian regions as either “safe” or “unsafe” for return. As a result, applicants for temporary protection Status S from the regions of Volyn, Rivne, Lviv, Ternopil, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk and Chernivtsi “risk rejection”. However, current Status S holders and their families will reportedly be “unaffected” by the change. The decision to make the distinction between different Ukrainian regions came at the same time as a decision to follow EU member states by extending the Status S regime until March 2027. Commenting on the announcements, ECRE member organisation the Swiss Refugee Council welcomed the decision to extend the duration of Status S but criticised the decision to limit the length of time that Status S holders can spend in Ukraine to 15 days per six-month period (down from 15 days per three-month period). The NGO was also critical of the decision to designate seven Ukrainian regions as “safe” and accused the Federal Council of “yielding to political pressure instead of basing its decision on the actual threat on the ground”.

Related articles