Aegean Boat Report

Something significant has changed in the way people are reaching Greece.

For years, the eastern Aegean was the country’s main maritime gateway. Boats crossed the narrow stretches of water separating Turkey from Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Kos and other Greek islands.

Today, the picture is very different.

Nearly 12,000 people have reached Greece from Libya so far this year, compared with around 5,000 who have arrived on the eastern Aegean islands from Turkey.

A route that barely registered in Greece’s arrival statistics only three years ago has developed into the country’s largest individual maritime arrival route.

The obvious question is not only how quickly this happened.

It is why.

Why are increasing numbers of people travelling hundreds of kilometres across open Mediterranean Sea from Libya when Greece can be reached from Turkey across some of the narrowest stretches of the Aegean?

There is no single answer.

War and displacement, changing movements through North Africa, increasingly established smuggling networks in eastern Libya and intensified border enforcement in the Aegean all appear to be part of a much larger change in the geography of people trying to reach Europe.

From 815 arrivals to almost 20,000

The speed at which the Libya–Crete route has developed is remarkable.

In 2023, only 815 people were recorded arriving on Crete and Gavdos. The following year, more than 5,000 arrived.

By the end of 2025, the Hellenic Coast Guard had recorded almost 20,000.

The increase has continued this year.

According to figures provided directly by the Hellenic Coast Guard to Refugee Support Aegean, 8,552 people arrived on Crete and Gavdos during the first six months of 2026.

Greek authorities now report that the number arriving from Libya is approaching 12,000.

Those figures are necessary to understand what is happening, but they represent people, not simply a changing line on a graph.

At least 780 children were among those arriving during the first six months of this year.

More than 3,000 were Sudanese. Hundreds came from South Sudan and Eritrea. Others came from Bangladesh, Egypt and elsewhere.

For many, reaching Libya came only after an extraordinarily long and difficult journey. Crossing the Mediterranean was simply the next stage.

Sudan, Egypt and a changing route through North Africa

One important part of the explanation can be found much further south.

The war in Sudan, which began in April 2023, has created one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

Millions have fled their homes, many initially seeking protection in neighbouring Egypt.

But life in Egypt has become increasingly difficult for many Sudanese refugees.

Rising living costs, difficulties obtaining or maintaining legal residency, arrests and deportations have been documented, while humanitarian assistance has struggled to meet enormous needs.

Increasing numbers have subsequently travelled west towards Libya.

For someone already in Egypt, eastern Libya is geographically close.

And on the coast around Tobruk, another development has been taking place.

Why Tobruk?

Smuggling activity from eastern Libya has changed considerably during the last few years.

Tobruk and surrounding areas have developed into important departure points for boats heading north across the Mediterranean.

The overwhelming majority of people reaching Crete and Gavdos depart from Libya. Hellenic Coast Guard data show that 99.4% of those arriving there during 2025 had departed from the Libyan coast, most from eastern Libya.

Smuggling networks have adapted to demand and opportunity.

Crete and particularly Gavdos now lie at the northern end of an established route.

But it is nothing like crossing the Aegean.

A much longer and more dangerous crossing

At its narrowest points, only a very small stretch of sea separates Turkey from some of the eastern Aegean islands.

From eastern Libya to Crete or Gavdos, people instead face hundreds of kilometres of open Mediterranean.

Journeys can last many hours or days.

Boats are frequently overcrowded and unsuitable for open-sea crossings. People may have little food or water and almost no protection from the weather.

Engine failure far from land can quickly become a life-threatening emergency.

People arriving are regularly reported suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and exposure. Others never arrive.

As the route has grown, so have reports of shipwrecks, deaths and disappearances.

And yet there is another striking difference between these two routes.

It concerns what happens when Greek authorities encounter the boats.

Two seas — two very different responses

Anyone following the daily announcements of the Hellenic Coast Guard will notice something remarkable.

Around Crete and Gavdos, reports of rescue operations are routine.

Greek Coast Guard vessels, Frontex assets and merchant ships locate boats south of the islands. People are taken aboard and transported to Greek ports.

Sometimes hundreds are rescued within only a few days.

This week alone, more than 300 people reached southern Crete or were rescued at sea within approximately 24 hours.

The picture in the eastern Aegean is very different.

Genuine search-and-rescue operations certainly take place there, particularly when boats capsize or people are in immediate danger.

But ABR’s daily monitoring of the Aegean also documents a very different pattern: boats intercepted before reaching the islands, people hiding after reaching Greek territory because they fear being returned, and cases in which people who had already reached Greek islands disappeared before later being found in Turkish waters.

We have documented people being taken from Greek territory, placed into inflatable life rafts without engines and abandoned at sea.

These practices are no longer based merely on allegations from Aegean Boat Report.

Illegal pushbacks by Greek authorities have been extensively documented by international organisations, journalists, human rights groups and European institutions. The European Court of Human Rights has also found Greece responsible for unlawful summary returns.

So why do we see such a different response south of Crete?

Part of the answer may simply be geography.

There is no Turkey opposite Crete

The geography of the eastern Aegean makes the pushback system documented there possible.

In places, Turkey is only a few kilometres away, and Turkish Coast Guard vessels operate immediately across the maritime boundary.

People pushed towards Turkish waters — or abandoned in engineless life rafts near the boundary — are frequently recovered by Turkish authorities.

Whatever the political relationship between Greece and Turkey, the practical reality is that there is another coast guard nearby to retrieve them.

South of Crete, that geography does not exist.

A boat encountered 30 or 40 nautical miles south of Gavdos may already have travelled hundreds of kilometres from Libya.

There is no neighbouring coastline a few kilometres away. There is no “Libyan Coast Guard” waiting immediately across a narrow maritime boundary.

Attempting to reproduce the Aegean model there would therefore be something entirely different.

Abandoning people without propulsion hundreds of kilometres from Libya, or attempting to force an unsuitable and overcrowded vessel back across such a distance, would create an obvious and potentially lethal risk.

The daily Coast Guard reports around Crete reflect a very different operational reality.

People are located.

They are rescued.

They are brought ashore.

Has deterrence changed the route?

This raises a difficult question.

For years, Greece and the European Union have invested enormous resources in preventing crossings through the eastern Aegean.

The region is heavily surveilled. Turkey intercepts large numbers of boats before they reach Greece. Frontex operates throughout the region.

And Greek authorities have repeatedly been documented illegally returning people who reached or attempted to reach Greek territory.

Meanwhile, another route has grown extraordinarily quickly.

It would be wrong to claim that Greek pushbacks in the Aegean caused the Libya–Crete route.

There is no evidence that the thousands now travelling from Libya are simply the same people who would otherwise have attempted the Aegean route. The changing pattern is far more complex than that.

The war in Sudan, displacement through Egypt, conditions in Libya, changing smuggling networks and border enforcement all appear to be contributing. Many people travelling through Libya may never have considered travelling through Turkey at all.

But the broader question remains legitimate:

Has increasingly aggressive deterrence along the shorter Aegean route contributed to displacement towards longer and more dangerous journeys?

If making one route increasingly difficult does not stop people from moving, but contributes to movement through other routes, what has actually been achieved?

A strange paradox

There is now a striking paradox at Greece’s maritime borders.

Someone attempting to reach Samos from Turkey may have only a very short distance of sea to cross.

Yet they face Turkish interception, extensive surveillance and the documented risk of illegal return even after reaching Greek territory.

Someone leaving Tobruk faces hundreds of kilometres of open Mediterranean Sea.

The journey itself is vastly longer and potentially far more dangerous.

Yet the daily reports from south of Crete routinely describe boats being located, their passengers rescued and brought ashore — a striking contrast with what ABR has documented for years in the eastern Aegean.

We cannot quantify the difference in the likelihood of reaching Greece safely without reliable data on all attempted departures from Libya.

But the contrast visible in daily Coast Guard reports — and in years of ABR monitoring in the Aegean — is difficult to ignore.

A shorter route has become extremely difficult to complete.

A vastly longer route has become increasingly established.

That should make European policymakers ask uncomfortable questions about what deterrence actually accomplishes.

Crete became a gateway before it became prepared

There is another consequence of the rapid change.

Crete has become one of Greece’s principal points of arrival without developing an adequate permanent reception system.

And this did not happen overnight.

The number of people arriving has increased dramatically for three consecutive years.

Nevertheless, people rescued after spending hours or days at sea continue to be accommodated in temporary facilities never designed to receive hundreds of newly arrived people.

Refugee Support Aegean has documented inadequate sanitation, overcrowding and people sleeping on floors and makeshift bedding.

This can no longer reasonably be described as an unforeseen emergency.

Authorities have watched this route develop since 2023.

The infrastructure simply has not developed with it.

From Libya to Crete — and then to the Aegean

There is another consequence of this changing geography.

People who cross from Africa to Crete are subsequently transported to reception facilities elsewhere in Greece — including on the eastern Aegean islands.

During the first half of this year, around 450 people were transferred from Heraklion to Kos, with further transfers to Kos and Leros following.

These are islands where Greece and the European Union spent enormous sums constructing Closed Controlled Access Centres largely in response to arrivals from Turkey.

Today, some of those facilities accommodate people who reached Greece by travelling from Africa across an entirely different sea.

It is a striking illustration of how quickly migration routes can change — and how slowly migration policy often changes with them.

The Aegean has not disappeared

None of this means that crossings from Turkey have stopped.

Boats continue to arrive on Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Rhodes and smaller islands.

Aegean Boat Report continues to receive calls from people hiding after reaching Greek territory because they fear being found and illegally returned.

We continue to document interceptions, disappearances and pushbacks.

But the relative scale has changed.

So far this year, roughly 5,000 people have reached the eastern Aegean islands from Turkey.

Nearly 12,000 have reached Greece from Libya.

The numbers tell us that something fundamental has changed.

Understanding why matters far more than simply counting the boats.

Closing a route does not stop the reasons people move

Migration policy often speaks about “closing routes”.

But routes are not the reason people move.

War, persecution, violence, instability and the absence of protection do not disappear because a border becomes harder to cross.

People and the networks facilitating their journeys adapt, and routes change.

Sometimes the result may be displacement towards other routes — including journeys across hundreds of kilometres of open Mediterranean.

We cannot say that Europe’s deterrence policies created the Libya–Crete route. There are too many other forces shaping what is happening.

But neither should Europe assume that reducing arrivals at one particular border means that fewer people need protection or that fewer people will try to move.

The extraordinary growth of the Libya–Crete route should force a more difficult question:

Are Europe’s border policies actually stopping migration — or are they helping change where, and how dangerously, people travel?

Aegean Boat Report

This week, the four-part documentary “Gates of Europe” aired on the Dutch public broadcaster NPO and will soon be available on ARTE. It presents itself as an objective investigation into the work of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency: Frontex.

It is not.

Having participated in the making of this documentary, Front-LEX, Refugees in Libya, and Aegean Boat Report denounce it as a manipulative production that seeks to whitewash Frontex’s crimes and absolve the agency of its responsibilities.

One of the co-directors, Els van Driel, presented us with a project whose intentions and approach differed significantly from the final production.

Suspenseful music, striking archival footage, a façade of impartiality, emotional testimonies, and beautiful cinematography are not enough to establish the truth. What ultimately shapes a narrative is the way a story is framed, constructed, and edited.

In that specific case, it is a carefully crafted public relations narrative.

This was the first time Frontex opened its doors to a film crew. There is no doubt, and it was even quietly acknowledged, that every scene involving Frontex management was carefully anticipated and choreographed, resulting in a production that bears little resemblance to the agency’s reality.

The documentary opens with Hans Leijtens, Executive Director of Frontex, cycling to the agency’s headquarters in Warsaw. Seated in one of the conference rooms of the brand-new building, he lays out the narrative Frontex seeks to project throughout the documentary: “People make mistakes, and perhaps sometimes people might have the wrong intentions, but we have to face that and show our colleagues, the world, the migrants, that we can be trusted. And for that, you need radical transparency, especially from us, because we have nothing to hide.”

If there is one word worth remembering, it is « show ». That is exactly what the audience is given throughout the four episodes, directed by no one less than Frontex itself.

A press officer explains how his work has affected the relationships between his wife and her friends. A spokesperson sheds what appears to be staged tears while standing in front of an empty boat in Lampedusa, saying, “Sorry, it hits me every time.” Hans Leijtens is shown petting dogs. Repeatedly, we hear lines such as, “We do what we can,” or, “There is a limit to what we can do.”

What is striking is that the filmmaker allows these performances to unfold without challenge, despite the fact that we provided substantive legal and practical arguments to challenge them. These arguments, however, were cut off and did not make it into the final cut. Placing performative empathy above real accountability and well-designed appearance above the simple reality. With that the filmmaker gives Frontex a stage and legitimacy that it does not deserve. For those who have spent years challenging Frontex impunity and fighting for accountability this portrayal feels like a slap in the face.

As a matter of facts, Frontex is a highly funded, EU agency with rapidly expanding resources  that enables, facilitates, and conceals crimes against humanity. That is not an opinion.

This documentary is only one element of the agency’s new communication strategy: an effort to rehabilitate its public image and convince audiences that Frontex has fundamentally changed since the departure of its former Executive Director, Fabrice Leggeri, and that it is now committed to accountability and transparency. Rest assured. It is not.

The production is undeniably well crafted, and it will likely persuade dozens of thousands of viewers as well as a large part of the European parliament.

Surely not us.

More information has emerged in the case involving the 36 people who arrived on the Greek island of Giali on 2 August before later being found drifting in two inflatable life rafts by the Turkish Coast Guard.

Video in the end of the report.

Since publishing our initial report, Aegean Boat Report has spoken to one of the two local men who encountered the group shortly after they came ashore on Giali.

The witness confirmed that the group was present on the island and that the Greek authorities were informed of their arrival. However, he declined to discuss what happened after the authorities arrived or provide further information about the Greek Coast Guard operation.

In addition, Two of the members of the group has now contacted Aegean Boat Report after being returned to Turkey and provided a detailed account of what happened after the authorities took control of the group.

According to the victims, officers arriving in a small Greek Coast Guard patrol boat confiscated all telephones, money and other personal belongings, telling the group everything would be returned once they arrived on Kos. As we now know, they never arrived on Kos, and their belongings were never returned.

They explained that the group was transported from Giali to a larger Greek vessel in two separate trips. The journey took approximately ten minutes at high speed.

After reviewing photographs of different Greek Coast Guard vessels, both identified the larger vessel as a Cantiere Navale Victoria P355-class patrol vessel. This identification is based on the survivor’s comparison of photographs and has not been independently verified by Aegean Boat Report.

The P355 class is significant. Four vessels of this class were delivered to the Hellenic Coast Guard between 2019 and 2022 with approximately 90% funding from the European Union’s Internal Security Fund (ISF) to strengthen the protection of the EU’s external borders.

The same class of patrol vessel was also involved in the Adriana disaster off Pylos in June 2023, one of the deadliest shipwrecks ever recorded in the Mediterranean, where more than 650 people are believed to have lost their lives. Following that disaster, the lack of operational video footage from the patrol vessel became one of the central issues examined during subsequent investigations.

According to the victims, the group was brought alongside the larger vessel where they were met by armed, masked men. Powerful flashlights were repeatedly directed at the group, making it difficult to see what was happening on board. Several of the masked men spoke Arabic and informed the group, in Arabic, that they would soon arrive on Kos and receive their belongings back. The survivor explained that the dialect suggested to them that these men were not Greek nationals.

This is particularly noteworthy because Aegean Boat Report has, over several years, documented numerous pushback cases in which survivors independently described masked men speaking Arabic during similar operations.

They further explained that the larger vessel then travelled for approximately twenty minutes before the group was forced into two inflatable life rafts. Some people were ordered into the rafts, while others were physically thrown into them before the crew departed, leaving 36 men, women and children drifting alone at sea in darkness.

The Turkish Coast Guard later located both life rafts and rescued everyone on board.

One of them described the experience in a single sentence:

“We will never forget the horrific scene of the children and women until we die.”

The evidence surrounding this case continues to grow. It now includes photographs, videos, GPS location data, the Turkish Coast Guard’s own rescue footage, an independent civilian witness confirming the group’s presence on Giali, and detailed testimony from one of the survivors describing what happened after the authorities took control of the group.

If the survivor’s identification is correct, this case raises serious questions about the use of an EU-funded P355-class patrol vessel in an operation that ended with 36 men, women and children being abandoned at sea in two inflatable life rafts. The fact that the same class of vessel became central to investigations following the Adriana disaster makes those questions all the more significant.

A case like this would, in many European countries, likely dominate the news for days. Reports that a state’s coast guard kidnapped men, women and children, confiscated their belongings, forced them out to sea and abandoned them in life rafts would almost certainly trigger intense public scrutiny, political pressure and demands for an independent investigation.

Yet in Greece, this case has received remarkably little attention. To date, it has been mentioned by only one Greek newspaper, which simply referred to the information published by Aegean Boat Report rather than conducting its own investigation.

Given the seriousness of the case, the growing body of evidence and the potential involvement of an EU-funded patrol vessel, the lack of broader media scrutiny is difficult to understand. These are events that deserve thorough, independent investigation—not silence.

The questions raised by this case extend far beyond the actions of the Greek authorities.

For years, a growing body of evidence has documented pushbacks, unlawful expulsions, violence against people seeking protection and the abandonment of men, women and children at sea. Survivors’ testimonies, photographs, videos, GPS data, satellite imagery, journalists, humanitarian organisations, international bodies and court proceedings have all contributed to an extensive body of evidence.

The European Court of Human Rights has also found Greece responsible for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in a number of migration-related cases, reinforcing concerns that these are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern requiring effective scrutiny.

Yet despite this, the European Commission has neither launched its own independent investigation into these documented practices nor initiated infringement proceedings against Greece.

If the European Union is founded on the rule of law, accountability and respect for fundamental rights, when does that responsibility begin? How much evidence is required before the Commission acts?

How many more men, women and children must suffer before the institutions entrusted with safeguarding the rule of law are prepared to enforce it equally across all Member States?

These are no longer questions about Greece alone. They are questions about the credibility of the European Union itself.

Aegean Boat Report will continue investigating this case and publish further evidence as it becomes available.

While much of the world’s attention is focused elsewhere, Greek authorities continue their inhumane and illegal treatment of people seeking protection from war and persecution in the Aegean Sea.

Over the past six years, Greek authorities have pushed back more than 100,000 people. Some were intercepted at sea inside Greek territorial waters, others had already reached one of the Greek islands. Men, women and children who had escaped war and persecution were violently denied their fundamental right to seek asylum.

During the same period, Greek authorities have been responsible for kidnapping more than 30,000 people from the Greek islands, taking them back out to sea, forcing them into inflatable life rafts and leaving them helplessly drifting. There have been no genuinely independent investigations, no infringement procedures, no sanctions and no accountability.

Everyone knows this has been happening. It has been documented for years by journalists, NGOs, lawyers, international organisations and even official institutions. Yet Europe continues to look away.

Over the last six years, 1,750 life rafts have been found drifting in the Aegean Sea carrying men, women and children—not because of shipwrecks, but because they had been abandoned there following illegal pushbacks by Greek authorities.

On the evening of 2 August, another 36 people became the latest victims.

⸻

At 17:00, a group reported to consist of 36 people—18 men, 10 women and 8 children—contacted Aegean Boat Report after arriving on the Greek island of Giali.

The group immediately provided pictures, videos and live location data proving beyond any doubt that they had reached Greek territory. Giali is a very distinctive volcanic island whose unique landscape makes it impossible to mistake for anywhere else.

Giali lies between Kos and Nisyros. Apart from workers connected to the island’s pumice mining operation, almost nobody lives there.

There is no accommodation, no organised reception facilities and virtually no permanent population. The only lawful course of action when people arrive on Giali is for the authorities to transport them to the Closed Controlled Access Centre in Makrygianni on Kos, where they can register their asylum claims in accordance with Greek, European and international law.

We advised the group to walk towards the island’s small port and make their presence known if they encountered anyone. On an island like Giali there are very few alternatives.

After some discussion the group agreed.

At around 20:00, they met two men who gave them water and contacted the authorities. At that point everything appeared to be unfolding exactly as it should.

About an hour later, a vessel identified as Greek Coast Guard LS-1133 arrived at the port.

The group found it unusual that the five men on board were not wearing official uniforms, but instead civilian clothing consisting of T-shirts and shorts.

At 20:59, we received the final message from the group.

“They are taking our phones. What should we do?”

Seconds later, every phone we had been communicating with went offline.

⸻

Had the authorities followed the law, the group would have been transported to Kos and registered at the Closed Controlled Access Centre in Makrygianni.

That never happened.

According to the official arrival figures published by the Greek authorities the following day, 3 August, arrivals were recorded only on Lesvos and Ikaria. No arrivals were registered on Kos or any other nearby island.

We know the group was on Giali. That is thoroughly documented.

We know Greek Coast Guard vessel LS-1133 arrived on the island. The refugees documented its arrival with photographs and video.

We know the group’s phones went offline immediately after they reported that officers were confiscating them.

And we know what happened next.

Shortly before midnight, the Turkish Coast Guard rescued two life rafts carrying all 36 people drifting off the coast of Datça, Turkey.

The pictures and videos released by the Turkish Coast Guard leave no room for doubt.

They are the exact same men, women and children who had safely reached Giali only hours earlier.

⸻

So how did 36 people disappear from a Greek island and end up drifting in two life rafts in Turkish waters only a few hours later?

Perhaps there is an innocent explanation.

Perhaps 36 exhausted people—including eight small children—voluntarily abandoned the safety of Greek territory, climbed into two orange inflatable life rafts in the middle of the night, carefully switched off every phone at exactly the same moment, and somehow drifted across the Aegean before being rescued by the Turkish Coast Guard.

That explanation would require considerably more imagination than simply accepting the evidence already before us.

The obvious question is not whether these people disappeared.

The obvious question is:

Who removed them from Greek territory, who placed them into life rafts, and under what legal authority?

International refugee law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are all clear. People who reach Greek territory have the right to seek asylum and to have their claims examined individually. Collective expulsions are prohibited, and people cannot lawfully be removed without due process.

If Greek authorities believe their actions on Giali were lawful, they should have no hesitation in welcoming a genuinely independent investigation, preserving and disclosing all operational records, vessel logs, AIS data, communications and any available video recordings.

If they cannot explain how 36 people disappeared from a Greek island only to reappear hours later drifting in life rafts in Turkish waters, then the evidence points towards only one conclusion.

Another illegal pushback.

Another 36 people denied their fundamental rights.

Another case added to the long list that Europe continues to ignore.

History will eventually judge what happened in the Aegean Sea.

The question is whether Europe intends to uphold the rule of law before history delivers its verdict.

In this report, the faces of the adults have not been obscured because their identities form part of the evidence documenting that the same group who arrived on Giali were later recovered by the Turkish Coast Guard after being found drifting in life rafts. We have carefully considered the privacy implications before publishing this material.

Three days ago, Scenery announced the upcoming release of Gates of Europe.

I appear in this documentary.

Before it premieres on 5 August, I want to make one thing absolutely clear.

I completely dissociate myself from this documentary.

Scenery describes Gates of Europe as a documentary that “brings together different perspectives” and explores “the realities of border protection, migration and human rights.”

That is not the documentary I agreed to participate in.

In my opinion, Gates of Europe does not reveal the realities of Frontex.

It sanitises them.

It sanitises Europe’s largest and most controversial border agency by asking viewers to empathise with its leadership, its officers and its institutional dilemmas, while failing to give equivalent narrative weight to the documented realities that made Frontex controversial in the first place.

A whitewash does not deny wrongdoing.

It minimises it.

It sanitises it.

It asks audiences to empathise with those exercising power while marginalising the people who have documented, challenged and lived through its consequences.

That is why I believe Gates of Europe functions as a whitewash of Frontex.

When I agreed to participate almost three years ago, the project was presented to me as an open investigation into Frontex and European border policy. The written project description promised “an open investigation, not a preconceived opinion,” where opposing perspectives would be central and where the realities on the ground would carry equal narrative weight.

That is the documentary I agreed to participate in.

As the project developed, I became increasingly concerned that it was moving further and further away from those stated ambitions.

I did not spend months arguing over minor editorial decisions.

I spent months trying to stop this documentary from becoming a whitewash.

I repeatedly warned the filmmakers that the balance they had originally promised was disappearing. I identified what I believed were fundamental omissions, supplied extensive documentation, suggested concrete editorial solutions and urged them to return to the documentary they had originally presented to me.

I never asked them to make a different documentary.

I asked them to make the documentary they themselves had promised.

Those efforts failed.

In my opinion, this is a whitewash. Whether that happened deliberately or because the filmmakers lost sight of the project they originally presented to me, I cannot say.

What I can say is this:

I spent months trying to stop this documentary from becoming a whitewash of Frontex. When those efforts failed, I withdrew my participation and demanded to be removed. The producers chose to keep me in it anyway, creating the false impression that I support a documentary from which I had explicitly withdrawn.

I refuse to allow my appearance in this documentary to be used as evidence that I support it.

I do not.

I reject its editorial direction.

I reject the picture it ultimately paints of Frontex.

I reject any suggestion that my participation should be interpreted as an endorsement.

In my opinion, Gates of Europe is not an open investigation. It is a whitewash.

So if you watch Gates of Europe and see me on your screen, understand this:

My appearance is not an endorsement.

It is not support.

It is not approval.

It is there despite months of documented objections, months spent trying to prevent this documentary from becoming what I believe is a whitewash of Frontex, and my explicit request to be removed.

I refuse to allow my appearance in this documentary to be used to legitimise a documentary from which I explicitly withdrew my support.

Aegean Boat Report is honoured that its founder, Tommy Olsen, has been awarded the Annette Thommessen Honorary Award 2026 by NOAS.

The award is given in recognition of many years of work documenting pushbacks, human rights violations and the treatment of people on the move at Europe’s borders.

For more than a decade, Aegean Boat Report has worked to ensure that people who are too often ignored, silenced or forgotten are seen and heard.

This recognition comes at a time when independent monitoring of Europe’s borders is more important than ever.

While Norwegian courts recently rejected Greece’s request to extradite Tommy Olsen, the European Arrest Warrant remains in place, highlighting the growing pressure faced by those who document and expose human rights violations.

We accept this award with gratitude, but also with a reminder:

People continue to drown at Europe’s borders.

Pushbacks continue.

Human rights violations continue.

As long as this happens, independent documentation remains essential.

This award is not only recognition of work already done. It is recognition of the importance of continuing that work.

Thank you to NOAS and the jury for this honour.
https://www.noas.no/nominasjonsprosess-annette-thommessens-hederspris-2026/

Yesterday, the competent Norwegian Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek authorities against the founder of Aegean Boat Report, Tommy Olsen.

The court concluded that the acts described by the Greek authorities do not constitute criminal offences under Norwegian law. It also found a real risk of violating Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to freedom of expression.

The decision goes far beyond a simple technical rejection of an extradition request.

The Norwegian Court of Appeal relied on findings of the European Court of Human Rights, UN Special Rapporteurs and EU Rule of Law reports. These documents document serious concerns about pushbacks in Greece and the targeting of human rights defenders working with refugees.

The court also acknowledged that the activities described by the Greek authorities – recording violations, obtaining information, communicating with refugees and assisting in asylum procedures – are protected activities, based on international law and freedom of expression.

This isn’t just a significant personal win for Tommy Olsen. It is also an important decision for journalists, human rights defenders, humanitarian workers and those documenting violations at Europe’s borders.

For years, individuals and organizations working with refugees in Greece have faced intimidation, surveillance, criminal investigations, and abusive prosecutions aimed at silencing criticism and stopping the recording of human rights violations.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Hålogaland sends a clear and serious message:

• Humanitarian action is not human trafficking.
• Recording human rights violations is not a crime.
• Freedom of expression and the rule of law continue to matter in Europe.

The court’s decision is also a reminder that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon against those who expose illegal pushbacks, violence and abuse against people moving in the Aegean Sea.

Despite years of pressure, investigations, threats and attempts to silence our work, the Aegean Boat Report will continue to record what is happening at Europe’s borders.

We will not stop.

(Norwegian Version Below)

The scheduled hearing in the Hålogaland Court of Appeal on April 21, 2026, in the case concerning the extradition of Aegean Boat Report founder Tommy Olsen has once again been postponed.

The postponement follows a request by the prosecution to obtain guarantees from the Greek authorities that Olsen will not be subjected to treatment in violation of the prohibition of torture under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Norwegian authorities thereby acknowledge that there is a significant risk of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR – the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

This is an absolute provision. It applies without exception. It cannot be derogated from. It cannot be negotiated.

Yet, Greek authorities are now being asked to confirm that they will respect this very right.

What does it say about the situation when a state must be asked to confirm that it will comply with an absolute prohibition against torture?

Article 3 must apply to everyone – not only in individual cases where concerns are raised. If such guarantees are deemed necessary, it raises serious doubts as to whether fundamental rights are respected in practice.

⸻

Greece: repeated violations – repeated convictions

Greece has repeatedly been found in violation of Article 3 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

This includes:

• prison conditions
• treatment of individuals in state custody
• and systemic issues that are not isolated incidents, but structural problems

Requesting a guarantee in a single case does not change this reality.

This raises an even more serious question:

⸻

Serious questions about the role and conduct of Norwegian police

It is difficult to understand why Norwegian police are pushing this case so aggressively.

We are faced with a situation where:

• a Norwegian human rights defender
• who for years has documented and exposed human rights violations in Greece
• now risks being extradited to those very same authorities

Yet the police continue to press the case forward.

Why?

Is this about protecting international cooperation – regardless of the consequences?
Are authorities willing to compromise the legal safeguards of a whistleblower in order to accommodate Greek authorities?

The conduct of the police gives the impression that significant efforts are being made to ensure this extradition is carried through.

⸻

Defense: Guarantees have no real value

Defense lawyer Brynjulf Risnes states:

“It is difficult to understand why Norwegian police are so eager to extradite Tommy Olsen to Greece. This appears to be a politically motivated prosecution by Greek authorities.
Now they seek guarantees that he will not be subjected to treatment violating human rights. That in itself says everything about the situation.
Trust in Greek authorities is already severely weakened. Such a guarantee has little or no value.”

The defense has also pointed out that if there is a real risk of a violation of the ECHR, that risk does not disappear simply because a guarantee is issued in an individual case.

⸻

A case about more than one individual

The allegations against Olsen in Greece essentially concern:

• receiving information from people on the move
• documenting situations
• facilitating access to asylum procedures

Actions which are not prohibited under either Norwegian or international law.

This is the core of Aegean Boat Report’s work.

If such actions are criminalized, the consequence is clear:

Documenting human rights violations becomes inherently risky.

⸻

A dangerous signal

This case sends a signal far beyond Norway:

That human rights defenders can be targeted
That whistleblowing can be criminalized
That documentation can lead to extradition
And that legal protections can be subordinated to political considerations

⸻

A test of the rule of law

When Norwegian authorities themselves acknowledge the risk of a violation of an absolute human right, they cannot at the same time push for extradition.

This is not just a legal assessment.

It is a test of whether the rule of law truly protects those who expose abuses.

⸻

Aegean Boat Report

Ny utsettelse i utleveringssak mot Tommy Olsen – alvorlige spørsmål om rettssikkerhet og menneskerettigheter

Den planlagte behandlingen i Hålogaland lagmannsrett 21. april 2026 i saken om utlevering av Aegean Boat Report-grunnlegger Tommy Olsen er på nytt utsatt.

Utsettelsen kommer etter at påtalemyndigheten har bedt om tid til å innhente garantier fra greske myndigheter om at Olsen ikke vil bli utsatt for forhold som bryter med torturforbudet i Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjonen.

Norske myndigheter erkjenner dermed at det er en betydelig risiko for brudd på EMK artikkel 3 – forbudet mot tortur og umenneskelig eller nedverdigende behandling.

Dette er en absolutt bestemmelse. Den gjelder uten unntak. Den kan ikke fravikes. Den kan ikke forhandles bort.

Likevel ber man nå greske myndigheter om en bekreftelse på at de vil respektere nettopp denne rettigheten.

Hva sier det om situasjonen når man må be en stat om å bekrefte at den vil overholde et absolutt forbud mot tortur?

Artikkel 3 skal gjelde for alle – ikke bare i enkeltsaker hvor det blir stilt spørsmål. Dersom det er nødvendig å innhente slike garantier, reiser det alvorlige tvil om hvorvidt grunnleggende rettigheter faktisk respekteres i praksis.

⸻

Hellas: gjentatte brudd – gjentatte domfellelser

Hellas er gjentatte ganger dømt i Den europeiske menneskerettsdomstolen (EMD) for brudd på nettopp artikkel 3.

Dette gjelder både:

• forhold i fengsler
• behandling av mennesker i statens varetekt
• og systematiske forhold som ikke er enkeltstående avvik, men strukturelle problemer

Å be om en garanti i en enkeltsak endrer ikke dette.

Det reiser et enda mer alvorlig spørsmål:

⸻

Setter spørsmål ved politiets motiv og fremferd

Det er vanskelig å forstå hvorfor norsk politi presser denne saken så hardt.

Vi står overfor en situasjon der:

• en norsk menneskerettighetsforkjemper
• som i en årrekke har dokumentert og varslet om menneskerettighetsbrudd i Hellas
• nå risikerer å bli utlevert til de samme myndighetene

Likevel fortsetter politiet å presse saken frem.

Hvorfor?

Er dette et spørsmål om å beskytte et internasjonalt samarbeid – uansett konsekvenser?
Er man villig til å sette rettssikkerheten til en varsler til side for å imøtekomme greske myndigheter?

Politiets fremferd gir inntrykk av at man setter mye inn på for å få denne utleveringen gjennomført.

⸻

Forsvaret: Garantier er verdiløse

Advokat Brynjulf Risnes uttaler:

– Det er vanskelig å forstå hvorfor politiet i Norge er så ivrige på å få Tommy Olsen utlevert til Hellas. Dette fremstår som en politisk forfølgelse fra greske myndigheter.
– Nå skal det altså innhentes garantier for at han ikke utsettes for forhold som bryter med menneskerettighetene. Det sier sitt om situasjonen.
– Tilliten til greske myndigheter er allerede tynnslitt. En slik garanti har liten eller ingen verdi.

Forsvaret har også pekt på at dersom det foreligger en reell risiko for brudd på EMK, vil denne risikoen ikke forsvinne gjennom en garanti i en enkeltsak.

⸻

En sak som handler om mer enn én person

De greske anklagene mot Olsen handler i praksis om:

• å motta informasjon fra mennesker på flukt
• å dokumentere situasjoner
• å bidra til at mennesker får tilgang til asylprosesser

Handlinger som etter både norsk og internasjonal rett ikke er forbudt.

Dette er kjernen i arbeidet til Aegean Boat Report.

Hvis dette kriminaliseres, er konsekvensen klar:

Dokumentasjon av menneskerettighetsbrudd blir i seg selv svært risikabelt.

⸻

Et farlig signal

Denne saken sender et signal langt utover Norge:

At menneskerettighetsforkjempere kan forfølges
At varsling kan kriminaliseres
At dokumentasjon kan føre til utlevering
Og at rettssikkerhet kan bli underordnet politiske hensyn.

⸻

Krav om en reell vurdering

Når norske myndigheter selv erkjenner risiko for brudd på en absolutt menneskerettighet, kan man ikke samtidig presse frem en utlevering.

Dette er ikke bare en juridisk vurdering.

Det er en test på om rettsstaten faktisk beskytter de som varsler om overgrep.

⸻

Aegean Boat Report

On the night of 3 February 2026, under calm seas and a waning moon just past full, an inflatable boat carrying nearly 40 people approached the Greek island of Chios. Within minutes, 15 people were dead.

What happened in those final seconds before impact is now at the center of sharply conflicting accounts — and mounting evidence suggests the official narrative is far from settled.

Two Versions of the Same Night

The Greek Coast Guard maintains that the inflatable boat, operated by a smuggler, failed to comply with light and sound warnings, abruptly changed course, and collided with the patrol vessel PLS 1077.

The offical statement can be found on the Greek coast guard website

Survivors tell a different story.

Across sworn testimonies given to judicial authorities, survivors consistently describe calm sea conditions, no audible warnings, no siren, no loudspeaker commands, and no visible blue emergency beacon.

Instead, they describe a sudden, blinding white light — followed almost immediately by violent impact.

“Nobody alerted us to anything,” one survivor told investigators. “Suddenly, one big boat just came and crashed into us.”

Multiple survivors testified that the inflatable was moving straight ahead and did not turn. Several stated that had they heard warnings, they would have told the driver to stop. Many were traveling with children.

The Coast Guard captain testified that warnings were issued and that the inflatable made a sharp left turn before striking the patrol boat. A chief petty officer gave a similar account.

The discrepancy is stark.

Forensic Evidence: Not Drowning

Early public communication suggested the victims had drowned after falling into the sea.

Autopsy reports reviewed by independent investigators now show otherwise.

Fourteen of the fifteen victims died from severe cranial and brain injuries. Many had additional thoracic trauma. Only one death listed drowning as the primary cause.

The concentration of head injuries is consistent with severe blunt-force trauma during a high-impact collision.

This shifts the core question.

If the majority did not drown, what delivered the fatal force?

The Damage and the Physical Impossibility Question

An official damage assessment of PLS 1077 documented surface scratches along the starboard side, a crack running nearly the length of the port side, and deformation of interior control components.

A former senior Coast Guard official stated that the claim that a heavily loaded inflatable carrying nearly 40 people could execute a sharp left maneuver at 30 knots and ram a 900-horsepower patrol vessel strains credibility.

Another maritime expert publicly compared it to a bicycle trying to ram a truck.

A currently serving officer described interception tactics that rely on close proximity, wave generation, and sudden positioning designed to force small boats to turn back.

At 30 knots, margin for error approaches zero.

The Missing Boat

The inflatable boat itself — the single most critical piece of physical evidence — has not been recovered.

Although the vessel was reported to have remained semi-submerged for hours after the collision, no immediate recovery was secured.

On 19 February, a formal search was conducted in the presence of judicial authorities and defense counsel. The boat was not found.

Photographs taken after the incident suggest that significant air remained in the tubes. A boat in that condition could remain afloat for extended periods, drifting with wind and currents.

Without drift modeling and expanded search grids, locating such an object days later becomes exponentially difficult.

But the failure to secure it immediately remains one of the most troubling aspects of the case.

If the boat was not recovered when clearly visible, why?

And if it later disappeared, under whose responsibility did that occur?

Cameras, Logs, and Data Gaps

The patrol vessel’s onboard camera was reportedly not recording. The captain testified that no memory card had been provided.

There is no collision entry in the ship’s official log. The captain stated that an injury to his hand prevented him from recording the event.

The patrol vessel does not appear in civilian AIS tracking records.

Requests for radar, GPS, and communication data have not produced public disclosure.

In any maritime collision involving fatalities, contemporaneous logs and recordings are primary evidence.

Their absence leaves a vacuum.

The Arrest and Identification Concerns

A 31-year-old Moroccan passenger was arrested and charged with smuggling and causing the shipwreck. He denies operating the boat.

Survivor testimonies indicate that witnesses were shown a single photograph during identification, rather than a proper lineup procedure involving multiple images.

Several witnesses stated they did not recognize him or were unsure.

Defense attorneys have requested independent examination of the inflatable, communications data, and further technical review.

Survivor Isolation

In the immediate aftermath, survivors reported phone confiscation and restricted communication.

Witnesses were isolated under what officials described as protective measures due to their role in ongoing investigations.

NGO access was reportedly limited.

Political Framing

Within hours of the incident, political leaders publicly framed the event as another example of “murderous traffickers.”

This framing occurred before forensic results were known and before judicial investigations progressed.

Pattern Recognition

The Chios case does not stand in isolation.

Previous maritime incidents in the Aegean, including the 2023 Pylos disaster, have involved allegations of aggressive interception, missing or unavailable footage, prosecution of survivors as alleged smugglers, and prolonged evidentiary gaps.

The Central Questions

Fifteen people are dead.

The core questions remain unresolved:

Were warnings issued?
Did the inflatable turn, or was it struck?
Why were cameras not recording?
Why is there no immediate log entry?
Why was the inflatable not secured?
Where is the physical evidence?
Were interception tactics used instead of rescue measures?

Under international maritime law, the duty to rescue at sea is absolute.

If an interception maneuver created avoidable risk, legal implications extend beyond negligence.

Conclusion

The available evidence does not conclusively determine what happened in the final seconds before impact.

But it does establish one fact clearly:

The official narrative is contested by consistent survivor testimony, supported by forensic findings and expert analysis.

The disappearance of critical evidence and absence of recorded data deepen, rather than resolve, the uncertainty.

In a case involving 15 deaths — including minors — transparency is not optional.

Without independent oversight, full disclosure of communications and tracking data, and recovery of physical evidence, confidence in the investigation will remain fragile.

The truth of what happened off Chios on 3 February 2026 remains incomplete.

Further developments are expected.

Aegean Boat Report is saddened, angered, and — unfortunately — not surprised to report the latest escalation by the Greek government in its attempts to silence our work documenting human rights violations in the Aegean Sea.

Earlier today, Wednesday 11 February 2026, Aegean Boat Report founder Tommy Olsen was contacted by Norwegian police and informed that they have received a European Arrest Warrant issued by Greece.

Tommy has not yet received the warrant itself and may not do so until any formal arrest procedure takes place. According to information provided by authorities, the accusations include human trafficking and facilitating human trafficking. The warrant further alleges that he is running a criminal organization, Aegean Boat Report, and is part of a criminal network that receives information from people attempting to enter Greece irregularly and forwards their details and location to Greek authorities so they can enter the asylum procedure.

These allegations are entirely false.

Tommy Olsen states:

“I have done absolutely nothing wrong. This is the deliberate targeting of a human rights defender with the aim of intimidation and silence. We have seen these tactics before. First a national arrest warrant, now a European one — still without evidence, still without basis in reality.”

Aegean Boat Report was founded in 2015 and has since become a widely recognised independent monitoring organisation documenting maritime arrivals, distress situations, and human rights violations in the Aegean Sea. Since 2019, our reporting has consistently documented the systematic use of violent pushbacks by Greek authorities.

Our work has been publicly supported by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, and by Amnesty International, both of whom have previously expressed concern about the criminalisation of our activities.

Aegean Boat Report rejects, in the strongest possible terms, the Greek government’s claim that Tommy Olsen — or Aegean Boat Report — is part of any criminal organisation.

We do not assist people in crossing from Türkiye to Greece, and we never have. Our work is limited to monitoring, documenting, and communicating with authorities when people in distress or newly arrived are located, so that they can access the asylum procedures guaranteed under international and European law.

In other words, the alleged “crime” is informing authorities about people who have already arrived in Greece so they can be processed legally and safely.

This is not criminal activity. It is the protection of life, transparency, and the rule of law.

The Greek government has threatened Aegean Boat Report with legal action for nearly four years. The issuance of a European Arrest Warrant represents a serious escalation and an attempt to extend this pressure beyond Greece’s borders.

We believe these actions are politically motivated and intended to silence independent reporting that exposes unlawful practices at Europe’s maritime borders.

When the case proceeds, we are fully prepared to defend our work in court. We are confident that the facts will demonstrate that Aegean Boat Report has always acted lawfully, responsibly, and in defence of fundamental human rights.

We will not be intimidated into silence.
We will continue to document what happens in the Aegean Sea.
We will continue to ensure that people in distress are not invisible.
And we will continue to hold authorities accountable when the law is broken.

⸻

Media contact:
Tommy Olsen
Aegean Boat Report
contact@aegeanboatreport.com