By Toby McIntosh
Invoking its privilege as a UN agency, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has said it is immune from the reach of the freedom of information laws of Greece and the European Union.
The invocation of immunity came in response for requests for reports about an IOM program in Greece that helps immigrants return to their home countries.
Data was requested both by an EU parliamentarian and by journalists who wrote an article for The New Humanitarian on whether the Assisted Voluntary Returns and Reintegration (AVRR) program was falling below its goals.
The reporters submitted a request under the freedom of information law in Greece for documents the IOM sent to the Greek government. The request was rejected because of an immunity agreement between the IOM and the Greek government.
Similarly, the European Commission rejected a parallel request by Tineke Strik, an EU parliamentarian from Holland. Turning her down, the EC cited its immunity agreement with the IOM.
The journalists and the parliamentarian sought progress reports sent by IOM to Greece’s European Programs Management Agency (YDEAP) and the European Commission, which largely funds the AVRR program.
Agreements between UN agencies and governments are not new and are intended mainly to protect the agencies and their employees from liability lawsuits and to prevent expropriation of property.
However, the IOM interpreted the immunity agreements with Greece and the EC as providing an exemption from their transparency laws. The episode recalls a similar IOM refusal in 2020, when access to information was denied about a similar program in Nigeria. (See EYE article.)
The IOM does not have its own access to information policy that would provide a path for making requests to the agency itself. About half of all UN agencies have such policies, which provide a process for making requests and set standards for making disclosure determinations.
Limited information on the national voluntary returns program is disclosed by the IOM. The New Humanitarian wrote that less data has been available in recent years.
The New Humanitarian reporters are appealing the rejection, a process that takes months. They could eventually appeal to the EU Ombudsman, whose opinions are advisory, and to the EU Court. The New Humanitarian reporters are Phevos Simeonidis, Hope Barker and Anas Ambri.
EYE has asked the IOM for comments and information on what data about the program is available. An IOM official has promised a reply.
Readers: EYE sucks at social media. For reliable notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. No deluge, usually several articles a month on a variety of global transparency topics.
IOM Thwarts Access in Greece
YDEAP, the national body which oversees migration control in Greece, denied The New Humanitarian reporters’ request because the IOM is not subject to the Greek FOI law.
The Aug. 18, 2025, reply letter said the immunity in granted through a July 2024 agreement between the IOM and Greece (Law 5207/2025), particularly Article 8.
Also, the IOM wrote the Greek Foreign Ministry with an “explicit request” not to publish the “strictly confidential” documents, according the Greek reply letter.
Article 8 is titled, “Office of the Organization, property, including intellectual property,” … and among other things exempts the IOM from taxation and financial controls.
Two clauses concern information. They state:
- The records of the Organization and generally all documents belonging to it or in its possession shall be inviolable.”
- Any documents and materials relating to a programme of the Agency [IOM] which are in the possession or under the control of the personnel of the Agency shall be considered documents and materials belonging to the Agency. Access to the relevant documents by the competent authorities [Greek official] shall be ensured in accordance with the modalities of cooperation as set out in Article 4, paragraph 1 of this Agreement.
The New Humanitarian quoted Chris Jones, executive director at the pro-transparency NGO Statewatch, as calling the IOM’s position a “structural absurdity.” Jones also said: “International organisations are now carrying out what are, in effect, sensitive state functions. Yet they remain insulated from the very accountability mechanisms that supposedly bind states.”
EU Parliamentarian Replies to Rejection
The European Commission on Sept. 19, 2025, turned down a similar request, from Tineke Strik, a member of the European Parliament from Holland sitting with the Greens–European Free Alliance group. She asked for grant agreements and technical progress reports. The EC cited IOM immunity. Strik has not appealed the rejection, but remains concerned that the lack of information will impede oversight.
“The Commission deliberately uses IOM to avoid scrutiny over controversial migration projects by outsourcing implementation to them and refusing to give transparency to the European Parliament about the funding, with the argument that IOM is responsible,” Strik said in a statement to EYE.
She continued:
The UN agency runs these projects and can de facto determine everything without any form of democratic control. But this is not allowed. The European Parliament has a mandate to scrutinize EU funds and therefore must be able to access overviews of financial contributions, implementation reports, and evidence that human rights are being respected. The Commission needs to urgently change this approach to live up to its legal obligations.
Lengthy EU Letter Details IOM Objections
The EC denial letter, signed Sept. 21, 2025, by Beate Gminder, Director-General of the Director-General in DG Migration and Home Affairs, said the requested documents “have either been drawn up in their entirety by IOM, or the latter is a coauthor.” As such, the EC was bound to consult the IOM about releasing the documents, she said.
“In response to the consultation, IOM opposed to the disclosure of Documents 1–6h,” Gminder reported.
Multiple rationales are given in the10-page letter, which make for dense reading.
First, the letter elaborated on the IOM’s objections, stating:
Without prejudice to the privileges and immunities that IOM is claiming to enjoy as an international organisation (4), in their argumentation they note additionally that the IOM Documents were not intended for external communication purposes and pertain to a project funded by the European Union and implemented by IOM in Greece. These have never been made publicly available by IOM considering they are all reports shared in confidence solely with the European Commission for the purpose of fulfilling IOM’s contractual reporting obligations towards the European Commission.
The IOM, the EC said, “… is of the opinion that it is not subject to the provisions of EU legislation, including Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001, and disclosure of its documents is prohibited in the jurisdictions in which IOM enjoys such inviolability.”
The EC letter cited other arguments made by the IOM. Among other things, the IOM said that disclosure of documents about returns program and the IOM agreement with Greece “could undermine the relationship and trust between IOM and the Greek authorities and negatively impact the long-standing cooperation which has enabled the provision of essential assistance and support to mainly vulnerable migrants in Greece.”
In addition, there were worries about the documents being misunderstood. The reply said:
Furthermore, disclosing these documents, which were not designed for external communication purposes, might lead to misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations regarding the nature and financial management of EU-funded activities implemented by IOM in Greece. This could be broadly relayed and negatively impact established international relations between the EU, IOM and the Greek authorities, as well as relations with third-country representatives and partner organizations involved in the project activities. This could, in turn, jeopardize the ability of IOM and other actors to provide support to vulnerable migrants in Greece and ultimately impede future access to final beneficiaries.
Additional Arguments Based on EU Policy
The EC’s Gminder concurred with IOM arguments and referenced the EU transparency policy, Regulation No 1049/2001.
She relied first on a provision in Regulation No 1049/2001 that provides that ”[t]he institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.” She wrote, “It is important to observe at this point that the parties have mutually agreed to preserve the confidentiality of any document, information or other material directly related to the implementation of the action that is communicated as confidential, especially when its disclosure could jeopardize the parties’ privileges, immunities or the safety of the staff, contractors and beneficiaries.”
The EC official also cited exemptions to protect “public security,” commercial interest and personal data.
She rejected providing partial access, but said, “… no meaningful partial access is possible without undermining the interests described above (international relations, public security, commercial interests), while you did not mention in your request any reason why, I should provide you with partial access.”
There was more.
The IOM argued that the document “also contain detailed information on the projects with specific reference to, inter alia, IOM activities, timelines, outcomes, risks, budgets and financial reports.” IOM “always treats such information as confidential, since it is considered sensitive information that should not be made public.”
“The release of such information could jeopardize IOM’s advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness and efficiency over other entities implementing or aiming to implement similar projects worldwide, and that may also apply for funding from the EU,” according to the IOM response quoted in the EC denial letter.
Even more: “The information, if disclosed, could interfere not only with IOM’s negotiations with other partners in Greece, and possibly elsewhere, but also with other programmes funded by the EU and/or other entities. If these documents were to be disclosed and read in conjunction with other documents available, the negotiations of future EU-IOM agreements may be negatively affected.”
And there was more, concerning “security risks.”
The IOM said the documents “contain sensitive operational information on the implementation of the funded activities, in particular field staff matrices and workplans, detailed information on the past operational structures and logistical arrangements including IOM activities implemented by IOM personnel as well as other actors.”
Even though this project has ended, the IOM said, the disclosure of such information “could pose security risks by revealing past staff strategies, locations, and sensitive operational details that could still be relevant to ongoing or similar interventions (the Open Centre for migrants registered for assisted voluntary return is still operational and funded by National Funds).” And further, “ The release of the information could also create a risk for organizations involved in ongoing or similar interventions, their personnel, contractors, as well as vulnerable migrants assisted under the project in these locations.”
The IOM also cited concerns about disclosure of personal data.
Similar Immunity Situation in Nigeria
Six years ago, similar exemption claims were made by the IOM in Nigeria. (See EYE article, March 12, 2020.)
EYE reported on unsuccessful effort by a nongovernmental organization to learn about an IOM project supporting vocational training and small loans for Nigerians who left the country but decided to return.
A Nigerian NGO asked the IOM about the $324,000 program, but an IOM official declined to provide answers and denied having “any information” about it.
This contrasts with procedures at some other international organizations, such as the World Bank, where project documents are routinely posted, and access to information policies permit the making of requests.
The IOM lacks a system for requesting documents.
The Initiative for Rural Development Information and Legal Advocacy (IRUDILA) also known as FOI Counsel, in 2019 wrote the IOM mission in Nigeria asking for information.
However, Frantz Celestin, the IOM Chief of Mission in Nigeria, replied that the IOM, as a UN intergovernmental organization, “enjoys privileges and immunities in Nigeria since 2002” and as such is not covered by the Nigerian FOIA law.
FOI Counsel brought a suit, getting as far as obtaining a court order that papers be served on the IOM office.
However, the case was not pursued, The New Humanitarian reported, because of the expense of litigation.
IOM Database Has Limited National Data
Little information the national ACRR programs is available on the IOM Migration Data Portal.
A Return Migration page includes 2023-2017 annual reports on the AVRR program internationally, including the numbers of returns by country.
So the 2023 report, Return and reintegration key highlights 2023, says the number of voluntary returns from Greece was 2,705. The other annual reports make it is possible to see the total return figures from Greece (2022 – 3,065; 2021 – 2,736; etc., back to 2017).
Confusingly the Data Overview page says, “Last updated on 10 September 2024.” However, links to AVRR annual reports are inactive as is the link to AVRR Quarterly Bulletins, where a note says “Database, not publicly accessible.”
The New Humanitarian wrote that in July 2023, IOM Greece published a single brochure on its AVRR programme, but that “information about its staff’s continued visits to detention facilities, which had been included in earlier reports, was missing.”
An IOM Greece Facebook posting showed a graphic with data not only returns from the period from September 2023 to June 2025, including data on where they were from, their sex and the number of children.
For some countries, based on a Google search, the IOM has issued press releases about the number of returnees. For example, see this article on Tunisia in Info Migrants, a collaboration led by three major European media sources.
Other Media Scrutiny
The New Humanitarian published an earlier article, “Return, or prison”: Inside IOM and Greece’s failing migrant return scheme. The article said program has “failed to meet its targets” over the past six years, despite receiving more than $60 million in funding, mostly from the EU. They cited “grant agreements between IOM and the Greek Ministry of Citizen Protection” showing that “targets for the AVRR project were revised after the project concluded to ensure its successful completion.”
BalkanInsight in October 2025 wrote Consent is Key: Bulgaria Accused of Coercion Over Syrians’ ‘Voluntary’ Deportations. Beside relying on interviews, reporter Hope Barker cited a 2023 Action Plan agreed between Frontex, the European border agency, and the Bulgarian Interior Ministry.
The IOM AVRR program also came under scrutiny in The Gambia.
A February 2025 article in The Republic was headlined Reintegration or return to despair? How IOM in Gambia fails ‘backway’ returnees. Written by Mustapha K Darboe and Josef Skrdlikand, it was based largely on interviews with over 40 recently reintegrated returnees and included comments from the IOM.
The investigation, which won a national journalism award, was summarized this way:
An investigation by The Republic uncovers that the reintegration scheme, which had assisted 7,618 returnee Gambians by December 2024, has been poorly managed, often subjecting returnees to long months of defeating waiting before they can access support and turning the grants for business start-ups into a ‘cash cow’ for IOM-designated suppliers. Restricted in what businesses they can pursue, the returnees have also been forced into domains they did not desire, undermining the viability of their ventures.
