Aegean Boat Report

An agency whose conduct we scrutinise could gain a privileged channel for flagging our reporting to social-media platforms. At the same time, the European Commission’s proposed reform would narrow the scope of Frontex’s internal human-rights watchdog, according to Reuters.

That combination demands scrutiny—not reassurance.

On 27 October 2026, the Commission proposed expanding Frontex’s standing corps to 30,000 personnel, strengthening its role in returns and creating an Online Monitoring and Response Centre.

The centre would monitor publicly accessible social-media content for developments relevant to external border management and support action against illegal content linked to border-security risks.

This is a legislative proposal, not yet binding law. The European Parliament and Council must negotiate and adopt it.

More than simply watching posts

At the launch, Commission Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen explained that Frontex could notify platforms about content and seek designation as a trusted flagger under the Digital Services Act. If designated, its notices would receive priority handling.

Frontex could also ask competent national authorities to issue orders requiring platforms to provide information or act against illegal content. This would not give Frontex unrestricted power to delete posts itself. It would, however, strengthen its influence over which content receives platform scrutiny and possible enforcement.

For organisations already facing criminalisation for documenting border abuses, these powers cannot be separated from the environment in which they would operate.

Aegean Boat Report documents arrivals, disappearances and illegal pushbacks through photographs, videos, location data and testimony. We are an independent monitoring organisation, not a rescue service.

Our work makes people visible when their presence might otherwise be denied. It preserves evidence when official accounts need challenging.

What prevents information documenting people seeking protection from being treated as information facilitating an unlawful crossing?

ABR’s founder is already facing prosecution in Greece over work supporting access to asylum and documenting border abuses. The risk of legitimate monitoring being reframed as criminal activity is not an abstract concern for us.

There is no evidence that this proposal specifically targets ABR. Its public-content monitoring mandate does not establish access to private hotline communications.

The concern is different: an institution being held accountable through public reporting could gain greater influence over the scrutiny and possible restriction of that reporting. That potential conflict of interest requires explicit safeguards.

More enforcement. What happens to scrutiny?

Reuters reports that the reform would narrow the remit of Frontex’s internal rights watchdog, with complaints referred to national authorities.

The Commission rejects the suggestion that this weakens protection. It describes the change as an adjustment to national independent monitoring mechanisms required under the Migration and Asylum Pact. Commissioner Magnus Brunner said national authorities would be responsible for further steps after receiving reports of possible violations.

But the existence of national oversight bodies does not guarantee effective investigation or accountability. Greece demonstrates why.

In its October 2026 report, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency describes systemic gaps in investigations, including cases left pending for prolonged periods before being dismissed or archived without perpetrators being identified. It also records that Greek prosecutors refused to reopen the investigation into A.R.E.’s pushback even after the European Court of Human Rights found violations.

Where national authorities repeatedly fail to investigate border abuses effectively, narrowing European scrutiny and relying on those same authorities risks leaving the fox guarding the henhouse. That is not a credible answer to impunity.

Independent reporting needs enforceable protection

Before this proposal becomes law, Parliament and Council must insist on explicit protection for lawful human-rights documentation, journalism and communications supporting access to protection.

Organisations whose content is flagged must receive reasons, have access to a prompt and independent appeal, and be able to challenge any resulting restriction. Frontex’s flagging activity must itself be subject to independent scrutiny and public reporting.

Oversight must follow the full reality of Frontex-supported operations, including the conduct of national officers—not stop at the distinction between an EU uniform and a national one.

Publishing evidence of a pushback is not a threat to European security. The pushback is the violation. The evidence is necessary for accountability.

Frontex must not gain greater influence over the visibility of critical reporting while independent scrutiny of its operations is narrowed.

Europe’s answer to documented border violence must be accountability—not greater power over those exposing it.

Sources:

European Commission: announcement and links to proposal documents

European Commission: press conference explaining the proposed online powers⁠

Reuters: expansion of Frontex powers and changes to rights oversight⁠

EU Fundamental Rights Agency: investigations into border-rights violations, October 2026⁠

Frontex refused to face one of its strongest critics in public. The organisers tried to accommodate that refusal. And another outspoken critic, who spent three years participating in the documentary, was never invited.

This is what the filmmakers behind The Gates of Europe apparently consider an open debate about accountability.

On 21 October, the filmmakers and Pakhuis de Zwijger announced the cancellation of their planned public debate with Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens in Amsterdam.

Their explanation is extraordinary.

According to their own statement, Frontex refused to allow Leijtens to engage in a direct public debate with David Yambio of Refugees in Libya, citing unspecified legal reasons.

Instead of insisting on equal conditions, the organisers attempted to accommodate Frontex’s refusal.

David could present his experiences and criticism. Leijtens could answer questions from the audience. But a direct public confrontation between them was apparently off the table.

They even proposed a private meeting.

A private meeting. Away from the cameras, the audience, and public scrutiny.

David refused to accept these unequal conditions, and the event was cancelled.

Yet the organisers’ explanation places considerable emphasis on David’s withdrawal rather than Frontex’s original refusal.

David Yambio did not prevent public accountability. Frontex refused to face him, and the organisers attempted to accommodate that refusal.

The organisers now regret losing an opportunity to hold Frontex accountable. But accountability cannot depend on whether the institution being scrutinised finds the conditions acceptable.

WHY WAS AEGEAN BOAT REPORT NEVER INVITED?

Our founder, Tommy Olsen, was extensively filmed over three years and is one of the documentary’s main characters, alongside Hans Leijtens, Tineke, David Yambio and Romy.

For three years, Tommy invested enormous time in the production, providing the filmmakers with access to his work, documentation and evidence of what happens at Europe’s borders.

Before broadcast, he withdrew his participation because of serious concerns about the documentary’s portrayal of Frontex and its leadership.

Following its release, Aegean Boat Report, Front-LEX and Refugees in Libya publicly condemned what we considered the documentary’s whitewashing of Frontex.

Yet when the filmmakers organised a public debate about their own controversial documentary, Aegean Boat Report was not even invited.

They were willing to spend three years filming Tommy Olsen, documenting his work and using his experiences to tell their story. But when it came time to publicly defend that story against criticism, Aegean Boat Report was nowhere on the programme.

Our work was important enough for their documentary. Apparently, our criticism was not important enough for their debate.

Not even an invitation to participate remotely.

Why?

We cannot know the organisers’ private reasoning, but we have our own assessment.

Perhaps because Tommy would have challenged not only Hans Leijtens, but the filmmakers themselves.

He knows what information they had, what evidence was available, and what questions should have been asked.

He would have confronted them about their editorial decisions, their portrayal of Frontex, and why their own journalistic accountability document acknowledges extensive evidence of human rights violations while leaving fundamental questions about their editorial choices unanswered.

Perhaps that is precisely the kind of criticism they did not want on stage.

THIS IS NOT ACCOUNTABILITY. IT IS MANAGED CRITICISM.

The filmmakers spent three years documenting Frontex, gaining extraordinary access to its leadership while possessing extensive evidence of pushbacks and serious human rights violations.

Yet three participating human rights organisations publicly condemned the resulting documentary for whitewashing the agency.

Now, when an opportunity arises to confront these criticisms, Frontex refuses direct public scrutiny, David Yambio is offered unequal conditions, and another central character and outspoken critic was never invited.

This is not simply a failed debate. It raises fundamental questions about who controls the narrative, whose criticism is considered acceptable, and who gets excluded when that criticism becomes uncomfortable.

The filmmakers and organisers owe the public an explanation.

Why did they attempt to accommodate Frontex’s refusal to face David Yambio instead of insisting on a direct public debate?

Why was one of the documentary’s central characters and strongest critics never invited?

And how can they claim to have created an opportunity for meaningful accountability when direct confrontation with Frontex was not guaranteed and one of the documentary’s most outspoken critics was absent from the programme?

You cannot spend three years documenting power, then allow that power to determine the conditions under which it will be questioned.

And you cannot claim to defend independent journalism while failing to provide a platform for those who challenge your editorial decisions.

For three years, the filmmakers were willing to listen to our evidence, film our work and use our experiences to tell their story.

But when it came time to defend that story publicly, our criticism apparently had no place in the debate.

Frontex refused to face David Yambio. Aegean Boat Report was never invited. And the organisers call this a lost opportunity for accountability.

We call it something else.

A demonstration of exactly how powerful institutions can be protected from the scrutiny they claim to welcome.

Aegean Boat Report

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

For transparency, we are making the following documents available so readers can examine the organisers’ explanations and the filmmakers’ editorial justifications for themselves.

1. Joint statement by Pakhuis de Zwijger and the organisers of The Gates of Europe, 21 October 2026, concerning the cancellation of the public debate.
2. Journalistic Accountability Document — The Gates of Europe, outlining the filmmakers’ editorial approach and decisions.

We encourage readers to examine both documents and draw their own conclusions.

6 October 2026

Proceedings against Aegean Boat Report founder adjourned until 6 April 2027

I was represented at the hearing by my lawyer, Zacharias Kesses, acting under my authorisation. I could not attend in person because I am subject to an arrest warrant.

The case rests on an extraordinarily unjust and fundamentally flawed indictment. It portrays the work of Aegean Boat Report as criminal despite its inconsistency with international law and with what Greek courts have recognised in previous decisions.

My lawyer submitted a motion challenging the validity of the summons to the accused. The court did not rule on that motion. It adjourned the hearing until 6 April 2027 because counsel for my co-defendant, Panagiotis Dimitras, was unable to attend.

Alongside these outrageous charges, I am also confronting a violation of a fundamental right: the right to know the accusation in a language I understand.

Delays in the administration of justice are a persistent problem. Regrettably, on this occasion, the delay was also compounded by my co-defendant’s side, which has contributed to the further judicial harassment I am facing.

Tommy Olsen
Founder, Aegean Boat Report
6 October 2026

Media contact:
contact@aegeanboatreport.com

Today, the criminal case against me is due before a court on Rhodes.

I deny the charges.

For almost nine years, my work with Aegean Boat Report has been to document what happens at Europe’s borders — arrivals, people in distress, disappearances, pushbacks and human-rights violations.

In March, I was arrested at my home in Norway under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Greece.

Greece asked Norway to surrender me.

Norway refused.

But the prosecution continued.

Today, that case reaches a courtroom on Rhodes.

I will be in Norway. My Greek lawyer will be in court representing me.

I will not speculate about what happens in the courtroom today. I will speak about developments only when the facts have been confirmed by my lawyer.

For almost nine years, I have documented what happens at Europe’s borders.

Today, Greece puts the witness on trial.

Whatever happens, Aegean Boat Report’s work continues.

Tommy Olsen
Founder, Aegean Boat Report

Defending myself in Greece costs money. If you want to help, you can support my legal defence here:

Tomorrow, a criminal case against me will come before a court on Rhodes.

For years, this case has existed in police files, legal documents, arrest warrants and court decisions. It has crossed borders and eventually reached my home in Norway, where I was arrested in March.

Tomorrow it reaches a courtroom.

I will be in Norway. My lawyer will be on Rhodes representing me.

There is little left for me to say about the accusations that I have not already said. I deny the charges against me.

But before this trial begins, there is something I do want to say.

For almost nine years, Aegean Boat Report has documented what happens at Europe’s borders when there are few, if any, independent witnesses.

We have documented people arriving on Greek islands and people in distress at sea. We have documented people who disappeared after reaching Greek territory, and people who were later found back in Turkey or drifting in life rafts in the Aegean.

We have documented pushbacks and other human-rights violations because somebody has to create a record of what happened — and because people should not simply be able to disappear without anyone asking where they went.

That work has made things visible that some would undoubtedly have preferred remained unseen.

Tomorrow, I become a defendant in a criminal trial in Greece.

That is a strange position to find myself in after years spent documenting the actions of others.

But prosecution does not change what we documented. It does not erase the photographs, videos, coordinates, testimonies or records collected over the years. And it does not change why this work was necessary in the first place.

Whatever happens tomorrow, that record remains.

And so does Aegean Boat Report.

We are still here.
We are still documenting.
And we are still watching.

Tommy Olsen
Founder, Aegean Boat Report

Support my legal defence

When we talk about the criminalisation of human-rights defenders, attention naturally tends to focus on the most visible parts: investigations, criminal charges, arrest warrants, arrests and eventually court proceedings.

These are the things that make headlines, and understandably so, but they are only part of what it means to live for years under the weight of a criminal case connected to the work you do.

What receives far less attention is everything that happens in between, and how slowly it accumulates.

There is always another document that needs to be read, another conversation with a lawyer, another accusation that needs to be dealt with, another question that needs an answer, another decision that has to be made.

There are periods when very little seems to happen, but the case never actually goes away. It remains there in the background, requiring attention, time and resources, while normal life and work are somehow expected to continue alongside it.

I have experienced this for years now.

There have been numerous serious investigations against me in Greece, accusations repeatedly published in the Greek press, coverage I regard as part of smear campaigns against me and my work, online hatred and attacks, a Greek arrest warrant and eventually a European Arrest Warrant that resulted in me being arrested at my home in Norway.

Norway refused to surrender me to Greece, but even that did not bring the process to an end. The criminal proceedings in Greece continue, and so does everything that comes with them.

Perhaps this is one of the things I understood least when all of this started: you don’t simply defend yourself when you eventually enter a courtroom.

You have to defend yourself throughout the entire process, and when that process stretches over years it gradually becomes something that occupies a significant part of your life whether you want it to or not.

When the case follows you into your work

For me there is another dimension to this, because Aegean Boat Report is not a large organisation with a legal department, administrative staff and people who can simply take over when I have to focus on my own case.

I am the same person who has to deal with lawyers, criminal files, warrants and court proceedings, while at the same time monitoring the Aegean, responding to people asking for assistance, documenting pushbacks and disappearances, investigating human-rights violations, speaking with journalists and lawyers, and keeping the organisation functioning every day.

That means the cost of criminalisation is not limited to what happens to me personally.

Every hour and every resource that has to be diverted into defending myself is something that cannot be used elsewhere, and over years that begins to matter.

It is impossible to calculate how much time has been taken away from the work, how many investigations could have received more attention, or what else Aegean Boat Report could have done with the resources that instead had to go towards dealing with criminal proceedings.

A cost that cannot be put on an invoice

There is also a cost that is much harder to measure.

When something like this continues for years, it does not affect only the person whose name appears on the criminal file.

The people closest to you are forced to live with parts of it as well – the uncertainty, the pressure, the worry about what happens next, and the time and attention that the case constantly takes away.

They didn’t choose any of this, but they carry part of it nevertheless.

That is not something that appears on an invoice or in a court document, but it is still part of the price that is paid.

Then there is the financial reality

And then there is the financial reality, which is perhaps the most straightforward consequence of all.

If you are prosecuted, you need a lawyer. If the proceedings continue, you continue needing that lawyer.

One thing is certain: for as long as you need legal representation, the bills will keep coming. It is inevitable.

They do not stop because the case against you has already lasted for years, because you run a small organisation, or because you simply do not have the money to pay them.

Over the years I have been fortunate to receive financial support towards my legal defence from a number of organisations.

Without that support, I simply could not have defended myself through everything that has happened. It has covered substantial legal costs at different stages and has made it possible for me to have the legal representation I needed when I needed it.

But that also illustrates the problem.

The need for legal representation does not end when one bill has been covered or one stage of a case has been dealt with.

As long as the proceedings continue, so does the need to defend yourself, and inevitably there will be another bill that needs to be paid.

The fact that others have helped carry those costs in the past does not make the underlying financial burden disappear.

Sometimes the process becomes the punishment

This is something I think deserves more attention when we talk about the criminalisation of human-rights defenders.

A case does not need to end with someone being convicted or imprisoned before it has caused damage.

If convicted, the verdict may bring its own punishment, but sometimes the process becomes the punishment.

Years of investigations and criminal proceedings can consume time, capacity and resources, affecting not only the person targeted but also their family, their work and the organisation around them, long before any court reaches a final decision.

And there is a particularly difficult reality behind all of this: you can reach a point where you simply cannot afford the legal defence that you nevertheless cannot afford to be without.

The proceedings do not stop because you have run out of money.

The need for a lawyer does not disappear because you cannot pay the next bill.

You still have to defend yourself, and somehow the money has to be found.

For a large organisation there may be structures capable of absorbing some of that pressure. For Aegean Boat Report there are not.

Eventually you reach a point where determination is no longer enough, because lawyers and legal proceedings have to be paid for regardless of how strongly you believe in continuing the work.

That is the point I have reached.

Asking for help

I have been extremely fortunate that organisations have helped carry parts of this burden over the years, and without that support I honestly don’t know how I could have managed it.

But proceedings that continue also continue to generate costs, and there are limits to what organisations can cover and certainly limits to what I can cover myself.

A legal-defence fundraiser has therefore been opened.

Not because this is suddenly about money, and not because the financial cost is more important than everything else this process has taken, but because money is one of the very practical things required if you are going to continue defending yourself.

I don’t know how long the proceedings in Greece will continue, and I don’t know what they will demand from me or from the people around me before they eventually end.

What I do know is that I intend to continue the work I have been doing, documenting what happens at Europe’s borders and speaking about the human-rights violations I witness, regardless of how uncomfortable that may be for those responsible.

Because frankly, it is the right thing to do.

But continuing that work while defending myself has a cost.

Some of that cost can never be measured in money, while another part quite literally arrives as an invoice that has to be paid.

After carrying this for years, with the help of many others along the way, I have reached the point where I have to ask for help again.

If you want to support my legal defence, if you want to help me carry some of this burden, or if you simply want to make sure that I can continue defending myself without taking even more resources away from the work of Aegean Boat Report, I would be deeply grateful for your support.

And if you are not in a position to contribute financially, sharing the fundraiser can be just as important.

I have carried this for a long time, with invaluable help from others along the way.

I will continue to defend myself, and I will continue the work of Aegean Boat Report, because it is the right thing to do.

But I have reached a point where I cannot carry the financial burden that comes with it.

Support my legal defence

When people documenting what states do at Europe’s borders face criminal investigation and prosecution, the consequences extend far beyond the individual defendant.

My case is not only about what happens inside one courtroom on Rhodes.

It raises a wider question about the space available for human-rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, volunteers and organisations documenting what states do at Europe’s borders.

For years, Aegean Boat Report has documented pushbacks and human-rights violations in the Aegean.

That work has included documenting people who arrive on Greek islands, people in distress at sea, people who disappear after reaching Greek territory, and people who are later found back in Turkey or at sea.

It has also meant challenging official accounts and providing documentation to journalists, lawyers and human-rights organisations.

A wider concern

The concerns surrounding this case did not begin with my arrest in Norway, and they are not mine alone.

For years, international human-rights bodies and organisations have raised concerns about the treatment and criminalisation of people working on migration and human rights in Greece.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, reported after visiting Greece that human-rights lawyers, humanitarian workers, volunteers and journalists working on migration had faced smear campaigns, threats, attacks and misuse of criminal law.

More recently, a joint communication by five UN Special Procedures mandates specifically identified my case while raising concerns about restrictions on civic space and the environment for those defending the rights of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers in Greece.

Human Rights Watch has described the case against Panayote Dimitras and me as part of a wider pattern of prosecutions affecting people working with refugees and migrants.

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of OMCT and FIDH, has addressed my case under arbitrary detention, judicial harassment and transnational repression.

Fair Trials has also raised concerns about the European Arrest Warrant issued against me and about a wider pattern affecting human-rights defenders documenting violations at Europe’s borders.

And yesterday, Amnesty International issued perhaps its clearest assessment of the case so far.

Amnesty said the criminal charges against Panayote Dimitras and me are a “gross misuse of anti-smuggling legislation” and “are not backed by evidence.” It said we are being targeted for our work documenting serious human-rights violations against refugees and people on the move.

Amnesty went further.

It said that, for the first time, human-rights workers in Greece are being referred to trial for helping people access asylum procedures, and described construing such activity as “smuggling” as a distortion of international and domestic law.

Based on the information available to it, Amnesty said there is no indication that our work went beyond legitimate activities assisting people in exercising their human rights and documenting what was happening.

Amnesty International’s full statement can be read here:
Greece: Human rights defenders Tommy Olsen and Panayote Dimitras on trial for their work supporting refugees and migrants

These are independent organisations’ assessments. They are not findings of the Greek court.

The Greek prosecution maintains that the conduct amounts to serious criminal offences. The Greek court has not yet determined the charges.

My assessment

I believe this prosecution is politically motivated.

I also believe the history and nature of the case raise serious concerns that the prosecution is connected to Aegean Boat Report’s documentation of pushbacks.

Those are my assessments. I do not attribute them to the Norwegian court, and I do not present them as findings of the Greek court.

But there is now a much bigger question than what I personally believe about my prosecution.

What happens when documenting what states do at their borders carries the possibility of years of criminal investigation, arrest warrants, restrictions and ultimately a criminal trial?

The consequences do not stop with the people who are prosecuted.

Other people see what happens.

Other organisations calculate the risk.

Other witnesses decide whether speaking publicly is worth it.

And that is precisely why the wider context matters.

6 October

On 6 October, Panayote Dimitras and I are due to stand trial on Rhodes.

According to Amnesty International, if convicted, we face up to 20 years in prison.

I respect the role of the Greek court. It did not initiate this prosecution, and it is for that court to consider the case. I will not attempt to litigate the evidence here.

But whatever happens inside that courtroom, the question raised by this prosecution will remain:

How much space does Europe leave for those who document what happens at its borders?

THE GREEK FILES exists to ensure that question is not lost.

🔗 Defending myself in Greece costs money. If you want to help, you can support my legal defense here:

On 16 March 2026, I was arrested at my home in Tromsø under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Greece.

Greek authorities wanted Norway to surrender me so that I could be prosecuted in Greece.

Two months later, on 15 May, the Hålogaland Court of Appeal unanimously refused.

That judgment is one of the most important documents in this case.

Not because Norway decided whether I am guilty or innocent under Greek law. It did not.

But because, before Norway could surrender me, a Norwegian court had to examine the conduct Greece relied upon in seeking my surrender.

And what the court actually found deserves to be read.

What the Norwegian court examined

The Court of Appeal considered whether the legal requirements for surrender were satisfied.

One of the central questions was dual criminality: whether the conduct described by the Greek authorities would also constitute criminal conduct under Norwegian law.

Because the court found that the relevant conduct had been carried out wholly or partly from Norway, it concluded that the dual-criminality requirement applied fully. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

The court then examined the Greek accusations against me.

The conduct attributed to me included communicating with others, receiving information about people travelling towards Greece and assisting in initiating asylum procedures.

The Court of Appeal found that assisting someone in applying for asylum is not a criminal act under Norwegian law. It also found that merely receiving information from another person is not in itself criminal. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

The court examined whether my actions could amount to participation or complicity in organised unlawful activity connected to unlawful border crossings.

Its reasoning is important.

The court observed that the actions attributed to me — receiving personal information and initiating asylum applications — were relatively far removed from the core conduct of an unlawful border crossing.

The Greek charge did not state that I influenced who undertook the journey or their decision to travel.

Nor did it describe me as having a role in deciding where the border crossing would take place.

The court also noted that I was in Norway.

And it found that I was not a necessary link in the course of events. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

Assisting people to seek asylum

There is another part of the judgment that I believe is particularly important.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that initiating asylum procedures did not simply have a weak connection to an unlawful border crossing.

It pointed in the opposite direction.

The court reasoned that assisting with asylum procedures was a contribution towards asylum seekers presenting themselves to public authorities.

It further found that the actions attributed to me, considered in isolation, were lawful acts protected by international treaties binding on both Norway and Greece. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

The court also considered the allegation that I had facilitated people avoiding legally required border controls.

It found that the Greek charge did not concretely describe what required control had been avoided, what act of evasion had occurred, or how I had assisted anyone in avoiding such controls.

Again, the court noted the contradiction: helping someone initiate an asylum procedure requires that person to present themselves to public authorities. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

After examining the accusations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the dual-criminality requirement was not satisfied.

The request for my surrender therefore had to be refused.

But the court did not stop there.

Freedom of expression

The Court of Appeal separately examined whether surrender would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

This part of the judgment concerned Article 10 — freedom of expression.

The court stated that my expressions are protected under Article 10. It then considered the wider situation in Greece, including the treatment of refugees and the situation faced by human-rights defenders documenting their treatment. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

The court referred to findings of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Commission, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

It specifically considered documented pushbacks and concerns about smear campaigns, threats, attacks and misuse of criminal law against human-rights defenders working on migration. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

The Court of Appeal then considered whether there was a connection between my protected expression and the criminal proceedings against me.

Its conclusion was clear:

There were concrete indications that the charges against me represented a real risk of violation of my freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For that reason as well, the request for surrender had to be refused.

The decision was unanimous. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…

The formal conclusion of the Court of Appeal was:

“The conditions for surrendering Tommy Olsen to Greece are not met.”

What the judgment did not decide

It is equally important to be precise about what the Norwegian judgment did not decide.

The Court of Appeal did not acquit me of the Greek charges.

It did not terminate the criminal proceedings in Greece.

And it did not decide what the Greek court must do when my case comes before it.

Its task was to determine whether Norway could lawfully surrender me to Greece on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.

The answer was no.

International reaction

The significance of the decision was subsequently recognised by international human-rights organisations.

Amnesty International reported that the Norwegian court had confirmed that the actions for which I am prosecuted in Greece are not punishable under Norwegian law and that the charges represent “a real risk of violation of his freedom of expression.” Amnesty also reported that the decision would not be appealed. Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch reported that the Court of Appeal unanimously recognised that the acts described by the Greek authorities did not constitute criminal offences under Norwegian law and that surrender would risk violating my freedom of expression under Article 10. Human Rights Watch called on Greece to revoke the European Arrest Warrant and drop the charges. That call is Human Rights Watch’s position, not a finding of the Norwegian court. Human Rights Watch

The Greek prosecution continues

The Norwegian decision ended the attempt to surrender me from Norway.

It did not end the case in Greece.

The European Arrest Warrant remains active, and my trial is scheduled to begin on Rhodes on 6 October. Amnesty confirmed after the Norwegian decision that the warrant and Greek charges remained in place. Amnesty International

That creates an extraordinary situation.

A Norwegian appellate court has examined the conduct Greece relied upon when seeking my surrender and concluded that the dual-criminality requirement was not satisfied.

The same court separately found concrete indications of a real risk that the charges against me would violate my freedom of expression.

Yet the Greek criminal proceedings continue.

That is why this judgment matters.

And that is why I believe people should be able to read it themselves rather than simply being told what it says.

Read the complete judgment

Today, Aegean Boat Report is publishing the complete decision of the Hålogaland Court of Appeal.

For the protection of vulnerable individuals named in the proceedings, identifying information relating to refugees has been redacted from the publicly available judgments. These redactions do not affect the court’s reasoning or conclusions. Journalists and human rights organisations covering the case have been provided with the original, unredacted documents for independent verification.

OFFICIAL NORWEGIAN ORIGINAL

Hålogaland Court of Appeal — 15 May 2026
Case No. 26-050254SAK-HALO

This is the authoritative version of the judgment.

OFFICIAL NORWEGIAN JUDGMENT

UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Published to make the judgment accessible internationally.

The Norwegian original remains authoritative. In the event of any discrepancy, the Norwegian original controls.

UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Read the judgment. Read what the court actually decided. Then make up your own mind.

🔗 Defending myself in Greece costs money. If you want to help, you can support my legal defence here:

For documenting what happens at Europe’s borders.

On 6 October, I am due to face criminal proceedings on the Greek island of Rhodes.

I face three charges:

• Establishing and participating in a criminal organisation.

• Facilitating the unlawful entry into Greek territory of third-country nationals without the legally required border checks, jointly, in respect of multiple persons, for profit and on a professional basis.

• Facilitating the unlawful stay of third-country nationals in Greek territory, in respect of multiple persons and for profit.

I deny the charges.

For almost nine years, my work through Aegean Boat Report has been to document what happens to people at Europe’s borders.

We have documented arrivals, people in distress at sea, disappearances, pushbacks and human-rights violations. We have tried to ensure that people do not simply disappear at a border where independent documentation and accountability matter.

That work has repeatedly challenged official accounts of what happens at Greece’s borders.

Now I am the person facing prosecution.

The witness on trial

The headline of this campaign is deliberate: “Greece is putting the witness on trial.”

When I use “Greece” in this context, I am referring to the Greek state authorities responsible for bringing and pursuing this prosecution. I am not referring to the Greek people, civil society, journalists, independent institutions or the court that will hear the case.

The court did not initiate this prosecution. Its responsibility is to examine the case and determine the outcome according to law, and I respect that independent role.

I use these words because for years I have witnessed and documented pushbacks and human-rights violations at Greece’s borders. Now I am the person facing criminal prosecution.

Arrested in Norway

The case did not remain inside Greece.

A European Arrest Warrant was issued against me. On 16 March 2026, Norwegian police arrested me at my home in Tromsø.

Greece asked Norway to surrender me.

On 15 May 2026, the Hålogaland Court of Appeal refused.

That decision did not acquit me of the Greek charges, terminate the Greek proceedings or determine what the Greek court must decide. But it is a central part of this story.

Amnesty International reported that the Norwegian court confirmed that the actions for which I am prosecuted in Greece are not punishable under Norwegian law and that the charges represent “a real risk of violation of his freedom of expression.”

The Greek prosecution nevertheless remains in place.

International concern

The concerns surrounding this case are not mine alone.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, expressed deep concern about my arrest. Human Rights Watch reported that on 19 March she said the charges appear to be “in direct retaliation” for my work and form part of a “long-standing and well-documented repression” of human-rights defenders in Greece. On 25 March, a joint communication by five UN Special Procedures mandates to the Greek Government specifically identified me as a human-rights defender and founder of Aegean Boat Report, and raised concerns about increased restrictions on civic space and the environment for defending the rights of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers in Greece.

Amnesty International has said that the charges are not backed by evidence and stem from Greece’s misuse of anti-smuggling legislation. Human Rights Watch has criticised the prosecution and, after the Norwegian ruling, called on Greece to revoke the warrant and drop the charges.

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of OMCT and FIDH, has addressed the case under the headings of arbitrary detention, judicial harassment and transnational repression.

Fair Trials has raised concerns about the use and proportionality of the European Arrest Warrant in my case and has placed it within a wider pattern of criminalisation of human-rights defenders.

These are the independent assessments and concerns of the UN experts and organisations cited above. They are not findings of the Greek court.

Why I am speaking now

I will not use this campaign to publish evidence from the Greek criminal file or to argue individual pieces of evidence on social media before the trial. That belongs in the legal process.

But the existence of that process does not mean the wider questions should disappear.

The history and nature of this case raise serious concerns that the prosecution is connected to Aegean Boat Report’s documentation of pushbacks.

I believe this prosecution is politically motivated. That is my assessment, not a finding I attribute to the Norwegian court or to the Greek court.

The issue is larger than one person or one organisation. It concerns the space available in Europe for people who document what states do at their borders.

What happens when the person documenting human-rights violations becomes the accused?

On 6 October, the Greek court is due to consider the case.

Until then, THE GREEK FILES will explain the history of the prosecution, the significance of the Norwegian judgment and the wider concerns surrounding the criminalisation of human-rights work.

The court will decide the case. The public should be able to understand how we arrived here.

---

Tommy Olsen
Founder, Aegean Boat Report

Media enquiries and further information:
contact@aegeanboatreport.com
aegeanboatreport.com

New figures from the International Organization for Migration reveal a disturbing development at Europe’s borders: significantly fewer people are reaching Europe by sea, while more are dying or disappearing trying.

Almost 60,000 refugees and other people on the move reached Europe by sea between January and 15 September 2026, according to new figures released by the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

During the same period last year, 98,040 people arrived.

That represents a 39% decrease in sea arrivals.

But the number of people dying or disappearing on these journeys has moved in the opposite direction.

At least 2,292 people have died or gone missing on Mediterranean and Atlantic routes towards Europe so far this year, compared with 1,999 during the same period in 2025.

The figures tell two very different stories.

Europe is recording substantially fewer arrivals.

It is not recording fewer deaths.

Fewer arrivals, more dangerous journeys

The figures come from IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix and Missing Migrants Project and cover verified arrivals and incidents through 15 September.

IOM warns that the actual number of people who have died or disappeared is likely considerably higher.

Shipwrecks can happen without witnesses. Boats can disappear without ever being reported, bodies are never recovered, and many deaths and disappearances at sea therefore never enter official statistics.

IOM Director General Amy Pope said the figures demonstrate that people are undertaking increasingly dangerous journeys.

“Nearly every death and disappearance at sea is preventable,” Pope said.

The trend can be seen across several of the principal routes towards Europe.

Central Mediterranean: arrivals down 55%, deaths increase

The sharpest reduction in arrivals was recorded on the Central Mediterranean route towards Italy.

By 15 September, 21,393 people had arrived, compared with 48,231 during the same period last year.

That is a decrease of 55%.

Yet deaths and disappearances increased.

IOM recorded 996 people dead or missing on the Central Mediterranean route this year, compared with 844 during the same period in 2025.

So while fewer than half as many people reached Italy on this route, more people died or disappeared attempting the journey.

Eastern Mediterranean: fewer arrivals to Greece, 47% more dead or missing on the route

A similar development can be seen in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Greece recorded 20,428 arrivals, compared with 25,427 during the same period in 2025 – a decrease of almost 20%.

At the same time, deaths and disappearances recorded across the Eastern Mediterranean route increased from 284 to 417.

That is an increase of 47%.

The distinction is important: the 417 figure concerns the wider Eastern Mediterranean route monitored by IOM, while the arrival figure refers specifically to Greece.

One significant development within this region is the rapidly growing sea route from eastern Libya towards Crete and Gavdos.

Nearly 14,000 people have reportedly reached Crete from eastern Libya so far this year.

Unlike many crossings between Turkey and the eastern Aegean islands, where the shortest distances can be only a few kilometres, people departing eastern Libya face hundreds of kilometres of open Mediterranean before reaching Greek territory.

It is a fundamentally different and considerably longer journey.

From the Aegean towards Crete

Aegean Boat Report has been monitoring this change throughout the year.

For years, islands such as Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Kos and Rhodes have been among the principal entry points into Greece for people crossing from Turkey.

They are also areas where Aegean Boat Report has documented systematic illegal pushbacks at sea and from Greek territory.

Thousands of people attempting to reach the Greek islands are intercepted by Turkish authorities before reaching Greece. Others have reached Greek waters or Greek territory only to be illegally returned.

At the same time, arrivals from eastern Libya towards Crete have increased substantially.

Reporting accompanying the new IOM figures identifies increased movement from eastern Libya towards Crete as one factor behind the rising death toll in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The IOM statistics do not establish that illegal pushbacks or increased border enforcement in the Aegean have caused people to use the Libya–Crete route.

There are many factors determining which routes people take, including nationality, conflicts, departure points, smuggling networks, border controls and conditions in countries of transit.

But the developments raise an important question.

What happens when one route towards Europe becomes increasingly difficult to use?

Restricting one route does not remove the reasons people are moving.

Movement can instead shift towards different routes – and those alternatives can be significantly longer and more dangerous.

Gavdos – the people behind the statistics

The danger of the Libya–Crete route was demonstrated again only days ago.

On 13 September, Alarm Phone reported being contacted by a boat carrying 77 people south of Crete and alerted Greek authorities.

Hours later, a vessel was found partially submerged around 38 nautical miles south of Gavdos.

Fifty-one people survived.

One person was confirmed dead, while around 25 people were initially reported missing.

The incident should not be treated as representative of every crossing, nor does it by itself explain IOM’s statistics.

But it demonstrates the risks involved in a journey across hundreds of kilometres of open Mediterranean in boats that are frequently overcrowded and unsuitable for such a crossing.

Engine failure, bad weather, lack of fuel or a boat taking on water can quickly turn such a journey into a disaster.

And the crossings continue.

Only days after the Gavdos disaster, several more boats in distress were reported south of the island.

More than 17,000 intercepted and returned to Libya

There is another figure in IOM’s report that is crucial to understanding what declining European arrival numbers actually mean.

Between January and mid-September, 17,067 people were intercepted at sea and returned to Libya, according to Libyan Coast Guard figures tracked by IOM.

Those 17,067 people are not counted among Europe’s arrivals.

This illustrates one of the fundamental limitations of using arrival numbers alone to measure what is happening along migration routes.

Arrival statistics tell us how many people successfully reached European territory.

They do not tell us how many attempted the journey.

They do not include those intercepted and returned before reaching Europe.

They cannot fully account for boats that disappeared without trace.

And they cannot tell us how many people changed routes after being prevented from travelling another way.

What does a 39% reduction actually tell us?

European governments have increasingly focused on reducing irregular arrivals, strengthening external borders and preventing departures towards Europe.

Measured solely by the number of people reaching European territory, the latest figures show a substantial reduction.

Sea arrivals have fallen by 39%.

But that figure cannot be considered in isolation.

During the same period:

At least 2,292 people died or disappeared trying to reach Europe.

Deaths and disappearances increased despite substantially fewer arrivals.

On the Central Mediterranean route, arrivals fell 55%, while deaths increased.

On the Eastern Mediterranean route, deaths and disappearances increased by 47%.

More than 17,000 people were intercepted at sea and returned to Libya.

Taken together, these figures demonstrate why developments at Europe’s borders cannot be assessed simply by counting how many people reach European shores.

Behind every number is a person

IOM has called for greater international cooperation to save lives, protect people on the move, combat trafficking and exploitation, and expand safe and regular pathways.

“Behind every number is a human being, a family, a community,” Amy Pope said.

That is perhaps the most important part of these statistics.

A reduction in arrivals does not mean that the conflicts, persecution, insecurity and desperation that cause people to leave have disappeared.

Nor does preventing someone from reaching Europe necessarily mean their journey has ended.

Restricting one route can contribute to movement shifting towards another – potentially exposing people to even greater risks.

Sea arrivals to Europe have fallen by almost 40%. Yet the number of people recorded dead or missing has increased.

That should challenge any assessment of European border policy based primarily on how many people are prevented from reaching European shores.

A falling arrival figure tells us how many people reached Europe.

It does not tell us how many tried, how many were intercepted and returned, how many shifted towards other routes, or how many disappeared without ever being recorded.

And if fewer people are reaching Europe while more are dying or disappearing on the journey, declining arrivals cannot, on their own, be presented as evidence that Europe’s borders have become safer.

---

Sources: International Organization for Migration (IOM), Displacement Tracking Matrix and Missing Migrants Project, covering verified arrivals and incidents through 15 September 2026; IOM statement published 17 September 2026; Aegean Boat Report monitoring and documentation.

Aegean Boat Report is an independent organisation documenting arrivals, illegal pushbacks and human rights violations at Greece’s borders.

If you appreciate the work we do, and want to help us continue documenting what is happening at Europe’s borders, please consider supporting Aegean Boat Report. Every donation, no matter the size, helps us continue our work.

Donate through WhyDonate:
https://whydonate.com/en/fundraising/aegean-boat-report