At least 852 people died or went missing while trying to reach Europe by sea between July and September 2026, according to a new report from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

The agency’s migration bulletin, published on 22 October, draws on International Organization for Migration data and examines the protection of people travelling through the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic route towards the Canary Islands.

The highest recorded number was on the West Africa–Atlantic route, with 283 deaths or disappearances. The Western Mediterranean accounted for 229, the Eastern Mediterranean for 199 and the Central Mediterranean for 141.

The findings come as the EU implements its Migration and Asylum Pact and governments face continuing scrutiny over rescue operations, border policing and the treatment of children.

The routes behind the figures

The four route totals add up to 852. The overall figure is a minimum because some shipwrecks may go unreported and the identities or number of passengers can be difficult to establish.

The Atlantic crossing to the Canary Islands involves long journeys in small vessels exposed to changing weather and limited rescue coverage. Different Mediterranean routes present their own risks, including departures from North Africa and Turkey.

The agency is careful to distinguish people confirmed dead from those reported missing. Both are included in the latest figures; the data should not be described as a verified count of recovered bodies.

New attention to Ceuta

The bulletin also reviews the mass attempted crossing into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in July. Spanish government figures cited by the agency put irregular entries from Morocco at more than 72,000 on 30 July.

The event raised questions about reception facilities, safeguarding of children, alleged excessive force and access to protection procedures. Allegations against authorities require examination on their merits and must not be conflated with findings of guilt.

EU Today has reported separately on the Ceuta crisis. The new agency bulletin adds comparative data across migration routes and examines systemic safeguards under EU law.

Monitoring under the migration pact

Independent rights-monitoring structures required under the EU’s new migration framework are still being established in parts of the bloc, the agency says. Their effectiveness will depend on access, independence and whether allegations can be investigated.

The report also addresses restrictions affecting civilian search-and-rescue organisations and uneven support for people displaced from Ukraine.

European governments are simultaneously attempting to reduce irregular crossings, tackle smuggling networks and maintain legal duties to rescue people in distress. These obligations operate together rather than replacing one another.

The new figures provide a measure of the human consequences of dangerous routes, while the recommendations will test how far member states can translate the new framework into effective procedures.

Albanian lawmakers clashed in parliament on Thursday after opposition representatives attempted to force a debate on student demonstrations that have continued for ten days in Tirana.

Opposition MPs displayed photographs of students injured during confrontations with police and blocked the parliamentary podium. The assembly continued voting on legislation despite the disruption.

The protests began on 13 October, with demonstrators calling for improvements to universities and student accommodation, more affordable education and stronger employment prospects for graduates.

The political confrontation places renewed pressure on Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government and raises questions about the handling of public demonstrations in a country seeking membership of the European Union.

The developments are detailed in the latest reporting and official material, against the background of EU Today’s earlier coverage.

How the demonstrations developed

The initial protests outside the education ministry turned confrontational, with police deploying crowd-control measures and making arrests. Subsequent demonstrations broadened the dispute from university conditions to the government’s response.

Students have raised demands about accommodation, fees, public investment and the transition from education to employment. Those concerns should be distinguished from the strategies of opposition parties that have subsequently sought parliamentary scrutiny.

The government faces the task of responding to the original educational demands while addressing allegations about police conduct. Claims of excessive force require independent examination rather than assumption.

A parliamentary confrontation

Thursday’s disorder followed the refusal of parliamentary leaders to hold the debate requested by the opposition. Blocking the podium was intended to interrupt proceedings and draw attention to the treatment of protesters.

The governing side proceeded with legislative business, producing a direct confrontation over parliamentary procedure and accountability. Footage and descriptions of the clashes do not in themselves establish criminal liability for those involved.

The disagreement is also a test of the institutions intended to resolve disputes through political debate rather than confrontation.

Albania’s European ambitions

As an EU candidate country, Albania is assessed on reforms covering the rule of law, public administration, judicial independence and fundamental rights. The management of demonstrations and the operation of parliament can therefore become relevant to enlargement scrutiny.

European integration does not dictate a particular response to student fees or education policy. It does, however, require institutions capable of handling public grievances lawfully and transparently.

EU Today has already reported on Albania’s recent anti-government demonstrations. The latest development is the transfer of that conflict into the legislature, together with renewed questions about the handling of student complaints.

The immediate test is whether government and opposition can reopen debate on the protesters’ demands without further disorder, while the authorities account for their response to earlier demonstrations.

Authorities in France have banned or restricted demonstrations in a number of cities ahead of Saturday, 24th October, following violent disturbances during the previous weekend’s protests against the cost of living.

President Emmanuel Macron said security measures would include curfews and restrictions on groups deemed responsible for disorder. Some official demonstrations, including an authorised march in Paris, remain permitted.

The latest restrictions follow confrontations and damage to public buildings during the demonstrations on 17 October. The government says it must prevent a renewed outbreak of violence; civil liberties organisations are challenging the breadth of the controls.

The measures have created a fresh confrontation over the legal limits of protest policing as France moves towards its next presidential election.

The developments are detailed in the latest reporting and official material, against the background of EU Today’s earlier coverage.

Different rules across France

Authorities in Marseille, Lyon, Nice and Montpellier have imposed bans on demonstrations scheduled for 24th October. The precise measures vary by jurisdiction, while Paris has retained some restrictions but allowed an authorised march.

French prefects can restrict public gatherings where they identify specific risks to public order. Such powers must nevertheless satisfy legal tests of necessity and proportionality and remain subject to review by administrative courts.

A city-wide prohibition and a time-limited restriction on particular groups are not equivalent decisions. Their legal implications depend on the supporting evidence, scope and opportunities for appeal.

The government’s security argument

Macron has described a return to calm as the government’s priority and accused organised ultra-left groups of seeking to exploit demonstrations to provoke disorder. Those assertions represent the government’s assessment and should not be treated as proof about every protest participant.

Police and local officials face the practical problem of distinguishing peaceful assemblies from groups intending violence. Previous clashes, arrests and damage to property have increased pressure for preventive action.

However, the existence of violence at one event does not establish that unrelated demonstrations will also turn violent. This is among the central objections raised by rights groups.

Courts and political consequences

The Human Rights League and other civil liberties organisations have objected to broad protest bans. Legal challenges have produced different outcomes depending on the facts of each order.

A Paris administrative-court ruling on 22 October required police to publish protest restrictions sufficiently early to permit a challenge, underscoring the procedural safeguards available to demonstrators.

EU Today has previously reported the scale of France’s October unrest. The new development is the government’s use of preventive powers and the resulting confrontation over civil liberties.

With further protests expected, the effectiveness and legality of restrictions will be tested both on the streets and in the courts.

About 1,500 Ukrainians held in Russia and occupied Ukraine are facing criminal prosecution even though the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has never confirmed them as prisoners, Petro Yatsenko, representative of Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, said on 19 October at an event on missing persons at UN headquarters in New York. The event was organized by the permanent missions of Ukraine and Poland to the UN.

Without ICRC confirmation, there is no official record that a person is alive or held, which leaves captives without proper protection, the headquarters said. Amnesty International calls this enforced disappearance, a practice that puts people outside the protection of the law. The ICRC itself has been shut out. Under the Geneva Conventions it is supposed to visit prisoners of war, but on 18 September it told Reuters that Russia has given it no access to Ukrainian POWs since 2024. UN investigators have gathered evidence of systematic torture in the detention centers where they are held. Russia denies torturing or mistreating POWs.

Families lose track of captives as Russia moves them between prisons

Kateryna Nazarii, who coordinates families of the 24th Mechanized Brigade, is the wife of a Ukrainian serviceman held by Russia. The ICRC has not been able to confirm his status as a prisoner of war. Russia does not let the ICRC or other humanitarian organizations into the prisons where Ukrainians are held, and does not hand over complete lists of prisoners, Nazarii said at the event. When families do find out where a relative is held, she said, that person is moved to another prison, and contact is lost again.

Many of those whose captivity Russia has not confirmed are civilians. Among them, Yatsenko said, are about 200 young people born after 2000 and nearly 400 people over 60. None of them has been confirmed through the ICRC, according to the headquarters.

Secrecy and torture in Russian captivity

Most Ukrainian POWs are cut off from the outside world. In a March 2025 report, Amnesty International found that 24 of the 43 families of confirmed POWs it interviewed had received no word at all from their relative. Counting prisoners allowed only one brief call or text at the start of captivity, 72% of those 43 were held incommunicado. The UN monitoring mission found that only 21 of 174 former POWs it interviewed had been able to correspond with their families, Amnesty noted.

Silence is what makes the abuse possible, Amnesty argues. The UN monitoring mission found that 97% of former POWs it interviewed had been tortured or ill-treated, the report notes, and methods include beatings, electric shocks, burns, and sexual violence. A UN commission of inquiry concluded in 2024 that the torture amounted to a "coordinated state policy," the report adds.

When the Red Cross did get in, it saw what Russia chose to show. An OSCE expert mission reported in September 2025 that, according to former prisoners, Russian staff presented only prisoners in relatively good physical condition during ICRC visits and kept the sick and tortured out of sight. The experts also found that Russia blocked visits to some facilities and gave incomplete prisoner lists.

The unconfirmed are not a small group. A quarter of the 3,767 POWs who returned to Ukraine by November 2024 had never been confirmed by Russia as captives, the Coordination Headquarters said, as cited by Amnesty. Hundreds or possibly thousands more may still be held without Russia notifying the ICRC, Amnesty concluded.

Those who come back describe the conditions. Anatolii Zemlianyi, a soldier of the 2nd Assault Brigade released in the May 2025 exchange, told Frontliner that he spent eight months in a hospital in occupied Donetsk with a grenade wound in his leg and got no proper treatment. In captivity, he said, prisoners drank water from puddles.

Russia continues to hold Ukrainian civilians unlawfully

Nobody knows how many Ukrainian civilians Russia holds. "It is not known," the UN human rights office said in a September 2025 report, which cites Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office as having identified 15,250 civilians detained by Russia between February 2022 and August 2025. Exchanges bring very few of them back: of 5,941 people released from Russian captivity between February 2022 and 14 August 2025, 352 were civilians, Ukraine's human rights commissioner Dmytro Lubinets told The Week.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power may intern civilians only for imperative reasons of security, and only under a regular procedure with periodic review, the same UN report notes. Russia instead treats detained civilians as criminals, Oleksandr Kononenko, a representative of Ukraine's human rights commissioner, told relatives of civilian hostages in 2023.

"This convention clearly states that civilian hostages should not be detained. They should be released. What is Russia doing? It 'makes all these people criminals' and accuses them of terrorism, opposition to a special military operation, and assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which is completely absurd from the point of view of an independent state and those people who are patriots of their state," Kononenko said.

Kyiv believes Russia detains civilians partly to trade them. Regular civilian swaps risk signaling to Russia that by detaining more Ukrainians it could get more Russians released, so it may seize more people to replenish its "exchange fund," Lubinets said. Ukraine therefore demands that civilians be released unconditionally. Amnesty sees a second motive. It concluded that Russia has long used arbitrary arrest, torture, and enforced disappearance to intimidate civilians in areas it controls.