|
|
FAIR TREATMENT
FOR
ASYLUM SEEKERS
Caritas Europa
position paper on key standards for the
reception of asylum
seekers and for asylum procedures
Contents
1. Summary ……….………………………………………………………………………... 3
2.
Asylum
seekers’ legal access to the territory: The Gordian knot of immigration
control and international protection
Ø Caritas
Europa proposes standards for a future European policy on
permitting
legal entry to persons seeking protection at the border …...……. 5
3.
Conditions of
reception of asylum seekers: Considering reception conditions as a pull factor
limits human rights and leads to disregard for human dignity
Ø Caritas
Europa proposes standards for the reception of asylum seekers ...... 7
4.
Access to high quality
information and legal counselling free of charge: States lack awareness of the
action needed to safeguard the rule of law
Ø Caritas
Europa proposes standards for access to high quality
information and to legal counselling
free of charge ..………………………….. 10
5.
Improving asylum procedures and
making them shorter: Duration and poor quality are the main weaknesses
Ø Caritas
Europa proposes standards to
shorten and improve procedures .………………………………….……………. 12
6. Background ……………………………………………………………………………… 14
7. Caritas
Europa: Assistance to persons in need ….…………………………………. 15
--------------------------------------------
Caritas
Europa
Secrétariat
Général
4, rue de Pascale
B-1040 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: (+32) 2 235 03 96
Fax: (+32) 2 230 16 58
Email: postmaster@caritas-europa.be
1. Summary
The situation of asylum seekers looking for protection in Europe has changed in recent years. Assuming that reception conditions[1] were a pull-factor, many EU States have changed their legal framework on reception and the related practice. The misuse of reception conditions as a key method of deterrence has led organisations that assist refugees to fear that standards are being harmonised on the basis of the lowest common denominator. At the same time, Central and Eastern European countries, previously transit countries but now becoming countries of destination, have started to set up structures to respond to the needs of asylum seekers.
Europe’s weak standards for reception of asylum seekers, as well as the undue length and poor quality of asylum procedures, are the object of continuing criticism. Replies to a questionnaire sent to all 48 Caritas Europa member organisations reveal the following main areas of concern:
A. Persons in need of protection risk serious injury or death owing to the difficulty of obtaining legal entry, in particular to EU territory. Often, legal provisions and the manner of their implementation make it impossible to calculate the risk to a specific person of being refused entry into the territory. In addition, denial of legal entry often blocks access to a fair refugee status determination procedure.
B. In most European countries accommodation is not guaranteed to all asylum seekers, and is often in poor condition. Many governments aim to deter people from seeking protection and from reaching their territory by deliberately limiting human rights and disregarding human dignity. Caritas organisations in various countries are attempting to fill the resulting gap in governmental assistance.
C. The information provided on asylum procedures is inadequate almost everywhere. Although in some countries thorough written information is provided, experience shows that asylum seekers rarely understand the essential points. The information provided is formulated in overly technical language, or in difficult legal terminology. Legal counselling services are also inadequate almost everywhere. Generally, even in countries where there is government support for legal counselling services, only some asylum seekers benefit to a sufficient degree. Broadly there is a lack of high-quality, free legal aid from lawyers trained in human rights law.
D. Although efforts to train the personnel who decide asylum cases are appreciated, in most countries this has not led to an acceptable level of competence in the administrative body that makes the first determination. In many countries a significant problem is inadequate understanding of the skills required. Refugees facing a long and uncertain wait suffer from the length of determination procedures. Governmental and non-governmental agencies agree on the need to shorten asylum procedures.
The assessment above shows a wide range of severe weaknesses: there is a broad need for improvement.
Caritas Europa
ð Promotes
a policy of permitting legal entry to persons seeking protection at borders.
(find the standards proposed by Caritas on
pages 6/7)
ð Is
convinced that there is only one possible basis for formulating future minimum
standards for reception conditions: today’s best practice. Asylum seekers
are to be welcomed and their dignity respected.
(find
the standards proposed by Caritas on pages 9/10)
ð Promotes
state action to safeguard the rule of law. The state must offer asylum seekers
high-quality
· information,
· legal
counselling and
· legal
representation.
(find the standards proposed by Caritas on
page 11)
ð Promotes
substantial investment in increasing the quality of asylum procedures.
(find the standards proposed by Caritas on pages 13/14)
Governments fear that changing any one of these parameters would make asylum procedures more vulnerable to abuse. The counter-strategy would be to take a set of necessary measures at the same time, thus addressing the main weaknesses of European asylum systems as a whole. This would demand a great deal of time, money and effort.
Of course, it is possible that –
in the short term – the number of people misusing the asylum procedure
would increase. This and other negative impacts on the states’ objective
of immigration control can only be resisted or avoided if the standards
demanded here are implemented together with measures to reduce substantially
the duration of asylum procedures and – to a lesser degree – in
coherence with provisions on subsidiary and temporary protection. All this must
be accompanied by a transparent immigration policy.
This could result in a clear distinction between asylum seekers and other migrants; markedly shorter and much improved procedures; greater probability of achieving the "correct result" in determining the need for protection; and – mainly through shorter procedures – a decrease in the attractiveness of asylum to persons not in need of international protection. The result of fair, quick and thorough procedures, combined with other measures such as the right to work for asylum seekers, could also bring a marked decrease in the total cost of reception and determination procedures.
The creation of a Common European Asylum system as envisaged in the Tampere Conclusions would justify such investment in the improvement of procedures.
2. Asylum seekers’ legal
access to a territory
(The Gordian knot
of immigration control and international protection)
The legal framework of
most European countries formally (or in theory) allows
persons presenting themselves at the border who claim to be in need of
protection and who fulfil specific requirements to enter their territory
legally; in practice, however, even this limited access is often denied. The
laws of Central and Eastern European countries, in particular, demand that
asylum seekers lodge their claims at the border; otherwise there are time
limits for presenting well-founded reasons why they were unable to do so.
However, there are major hurdles to
overcome before an asylum seeker can reach the target country’s border.
Under the European Union’s non-arrival policy,
asylum seekers are prevented from gaining access mainly by visa requirements
for citizens of refugee-producing countries and by carrier sanctions.
If an asylum seeker does succeed in
reaching the border, other hurdles appear. In most states (mainly those in the
European Union) additional legal criteria must be met before entry is
permitted, for example, fear of persecution by the state from which the person
is seeking entry, no safety in a third country, etc. The safe third country
notion, although a legitimate legal provision, can become a
means of deterrence[2] if
understood and applied in an abstract way. In most states’ practice, the
application of this clause focuses on whether or not the person was safe
before entry rather than on whether or not he/she will be safe upon
return.
Finally, the implementation of the legal provisions hinders persons presenting themselves at the EU outer borders from gaining access to the territory. Although this argument cannot be proved with figures, the reality is clear: Only a very small proportion of asylum seekers choose the “legal path” – meaning application for asylum at an international airport upon arrival.
To conclude: legal provisions and
implementation make it impossible to calculate the specific person’s risk
of being refused entry into a country. And often,
the denial of legal entry blocks access to a fair refugee determination
procedure. “Such policies may ultimately result in exposing persons to
risk of persecution, by means of blocking their flight either in the country of
origin or in unsafe transit countries from which they may be forcibly returned
to the home country.”[3]
Given the ways in which persons
seeking protection are hindered from legally entering a territory, one can only
conclude that the fight against illegal immigration
has priority over the EU Member States’ asylum policy. The “logic
seems to be that in order to prevent the asylum system from turning into a
‘back door’ to permanent immigration, it should rather be closed in
the first place” [4].
The message as the persons affected understand it can be put clearly as follows:
Ø
It seems to be more risky to present oneself
at the border
than to expose oneself to traffickers.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands
of people[5]
already put their fate in the hands of smugglers/traffickers in an attempt to
escape their home country and seek protection in Europe.[6]
Many of these people are
refugees. They are forced to flee because of persecution, of a
real risk of being tortured or because they are in danger of grave inhuman
treatment. It has to be noted “that Europe’s most smuggled and
trafficked nationalities, such as Iraqis and Afghans, also happen to have a
very high rate of recognition as refugees under Europe’s own asylum
procedures. It [is estimated that] between one-third and two-thirds of the most
trafficked nationalities are eventually recognised”[7].
The current EU policy of preventing
refugees from claiming protection at the border is distinctly inhuman
in its consequences.
Migration policy fails to
distinguish between persons according to their need for protection. Moreover,
this policy is one of the factors leading to the destruction of documents and
loss of evidence about individuals’ immigration history,
which makes it impossible to return them to the
correct country when an application is rejected.
State practice ultimately contradicts its own interests and policy objectives in border control, public order and establishing the personal identity of asylum seekers.
It goes without saying that trafficking
in human beings is a business of the worst type, shamelessly
exploiting people in need and disregarding human dignity. According to the
European Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, nearly every day border police find the
bodies of people who died attempting to enter the EU[8].
Traffickers convert other humans’ hardship into
their profit. This is to be condemned.
Standards for a future European
policy on permitting legal entry to persons seeking protection at the border
Persons addressing themselves to
border guards and asking for asylum are to be allowed entry to the territory of
a state and their asylum application is to be forwarded to the competent
authority.
An asylum application should be examined in the country where it is first lodged. In countries where there is a safe third country rule, it is only to be applied when the third country in question guarantees access to a fair refugee determination procedure and there is no risk of refoulement[9].
No asylum claim can be refused because of delay. In fixing reasonable time limits for applying for asylum, countries should consider asylum seekers’ language difficulties, their access to information and legal advice and also the special circumstances of asylum seekers who suffer acute physical and mental illness (for example, torture victims).
Countries should provide for extra-territorial asylum at their embassies and missions, and in certain situations for “in country” processing of asylum applications.
Carrier sanctions should be removed for countries where there are grave human rights violations, war or civil war, as should visa restrictions for the nationals of those countries.
Visa restrictions should not be used to prevent asylum seekers from accessing the territory of a state.
3. Conditions of reception of asylum seekers
(Considering
reception conditions as a pull-factor
limits human
rights and leads to disregard for human dignity)
The term
“conditions of reception” is used in this section to refer to
accommodation, social assistance, access to health care, access to the labour
market, access to education, special provisions for minors and contact with the
local population.
Some governments consider high standards of reception an important pull-factor influencing the asylum seeker’s choice of target country. Some of these countries limit the support offered or even remove all access to help. The persons affected are condemned to live a bitter life in difficult conditions; some lack even a bed, food, hygiene facilities and medical treatment.
For various reasons, most asylum
seekers are unable to support themselves. Having spent their last resources on
fleeing, they are usually needy. In Europe standards of accommodation and
social assistance vary greatly. Some countries provide
asylum seekers with social care comparable to that available to their own
citizens in need; some reduce this “normal” allowance; others set
limits on how long asylum seekers can receive public care. Some governments
provide basic help only to a proportion of all asylum seekers – selection
depends on additional criteria such as the ability to prove identity by
presenting valid documents or belonging to specific countries of origin. Some
countries exclude assistance if another country might be held responsible for
considering the asylum application.
Therefore in Europe, at least some
asylum seekers are completely cut off from any kind of state assistance.
Persons affected are denied government help to cover basic needs such as a
place to sleep, food and hygiene facilities.
Asylum seekers’ access to
health care differs widely from one country to
another. Some governments ensure
that asylum seekers can benefit from health insurance. In other countries only
limited medical treatment is available to asylum seekers. Some asylum
applicants are excluded, formally or in fact, from any treatment except in case
of emergency. Some asylum seekers – although needy – do not have
access to medical treatment free of charge. The persons affected obtain the
necessary treatment only by appealing to doctors’ Hippocratic oath.
Only very few governments make an
effort to ensure that asylum seekers who need psychological help receive
adequate treatment. In most countries only private institutions provide the
necessary psychological back-up, which makes access yet more difficult.
The legal frameworks of several
countries formally allow asylum seekers to seek employment, either from the
moment the claim is lodged or after a specific period of time. In fact, only a
few applicants gain access to the labour market. In some
countries asylum seekers do not have the right to seek employment. Finally,
most applicants stay dependent on assistance virtually throughout the
procedure.
The inability to find any kind of
occupation while awaiting a decision on their status brings great suffering to
many asylum seekers. It causes desperation and a loss of prospects. No country
seems to have established adequate programmes aimed at alleviating this sense of
worthlessness.
With regard to access to
education, most countries allow minors among asylum seekers to
receive primary education. Some governments also provide for secondary
education; others would have to undertake considerable efforts to facilitate satisfactory
educational standards.
Some countries have developed a set of measures to treat minors according to their special needs; other countries make no special provision to meet the needs of young asylum seekers. Only in a few countries do unaccompanied children benefit from adequate assistance, for example, legal representation by a guardian, adequate accommodation, etc.
In some countries asylum seekers do not receive any language training.
Only very few countries have developed ways to facilitate contact of asylum seekers with the local population. Efforts to increase understanding of the particular situation of persons seeking protection in these countries have included socio-cultural activities held in reception centres; and provision of information to the local community to promote a positive attitude and to help asylum seekers join clubs and associations. Most countries have not developed such activities.
Often the families of asylum seekers are spread around various countries. The existing legal framework does not allow reunification of these families while their application for asylum is pending. According to these countries’ laws, only persons granted refugee status have the right to family reunification.
International organisations and
non-governmental organisations, including many Caritas organisations, often
find themselves compensating for the unacceptable consequences of this lack of
governmental assistance to safeguard the survival and welfare of asylum
seekers. It is clear that these organisations are carrying a heavy burden
caused by seriously inhuman policies.
In conclusion, these governments aim to deter people who are seeking protection from gaining access to their territory by consciously limiting human rights and by doing so in disregard of human dignity.
Excluding asylum seekers from adequate social assistance is a breach of international legal obligations. The intolerable situation these asylum seekers find themselves in has considerable impact on the fairness of asylum procedures. Moreover, some of the persons affected are refugees according to the 1951 Geneva Convention.
Asylum seekers are often represented to the public in the context of abuse of the system by persons leaving home for economic reasons and in the context of illegal immigration. Some members of the public develop the idea that asylum seekers are criminals.
Standards for the reception of asylum seekers
In
formulating future minimum standards for reception, the basis should be
today’s best practice. The rights enjoyed by asylum seekers should be
clearly defined and reception conditions must not be left to the discretion of
officials. These rights should remain in effect throughout the procedure until
a final decision is taken.
The
standards established for asylum seekers should also apply to persons
requesting other forms of protection.
Asylum
seekers should enjoy the right to free movement. Detention should be allowed
only under the conditions mentioned in Article 5 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. The minimum requirements of detention centres are that they
should be "open detention centres" with provision for social contact
facilities. Detention is not punishment for a crime. It needs a system of
regular monitoring to give opportunity to persons held in detention to complain
about their situation.
Asylum
seekers must be provided with documents giving proof of their status.
Every asylum
seeker unable to meet the cost of living should be given accommodation, social
assistance and access to full medical care. In countries where a social
assistance system exists, asylum seekers should enjoy the same benefits as
other residents do.
Governments
should provide for special assistance to persons who need it. They should
ensure that women provide legal and social counselling to female asylum
seekers; interviewers and interpreters should be women, wherever possible.
Special treatment should be made available for asylum seekers suffering from
trauma and other psychological problems.
Asylum
seeker families spread around various countries should be reunified and their
cases treated as a unit.
In general,
asylum seekers should be able to live an autonomous life as soon as possible.
To ensure this autonomy, asylum seekers should have access to the labour market
– without a waiting period or with no more than 6 months of waiting.
With regard
to young asylum seekers, the status of minor or adult should be determined in
the same way and on the same basis as it is for citizens. Schooling should not
finish at the end of the compulsory period, but on completion of an education
leading to a career.
Psychosocial
support, especially in the first period after arrival, basic language and
occupational training should be provided for asylum seekers. Support should be
provided to self-help groups within the refugee community.
More
attention should be paid to the cultural and spiritual needs of asylum seekers.
It must be realised that asylum seekers can have a very positive impact on our
societies.
Mass media
must assess critically their representation of asylum seekers to the public.
Instead of linking them to criminality, they should stress that these people
are guests and have suffered human rights abuses. Governments should facilitate
contacts between asylum seekers and the local population, with a view to
increasing public awareness and understanding of asylum seekers’
situation.
In the
experience of Caritas, NGOs play an important role in the reception of asylum
seekers. Since they are in direct contact with the persons concerned, they are
able to function as a monitoring and dialogue partner of government. NGOs can
also act as an implementing partner funded by government to run reception
facilities and provide other reception-related services.
All uprooted persons enjoy the right to humane and dignified treatment. A large proportion of asylum seekers need protection; many are refugees according to the Geneva Convention; some need protection according to human rights standards; and others need protection because of humanitarian concerns. Therefore, for as long as there is no final decision on an asylum claim according to international obligations, the person concerned must be treated as a refugee in a way that respects his/her dignity.
4. Access to high quality information and to legal counselling
free of charge
(States lack
awareness of the action needed to safeguard the rule of law)
Asylum seekers generally do not speak the reception country’s language, they are not familiar with the legal system of the country they live in and they do not know their rights and duties. They are unable to represent themselves adequately and are therefore in danger of failing to obtain the rights to which they are entitled. Asylum seekers depend on competent assistance.
All countries where Caritas
organisations are active provide information about the asylum procedure to
asylum seekers. The quality of information provided differs
widely. In some countries information leaflets are offered; in others,
brochures or information packages.
Some countries provide the information
only in the country’s own language, others in the languages of the main
countries of origin. Some governments have established independent refugee
counselling services, provided free of charge and located at asylum offices
which are accessible throughout the procedure.
Although in some countries thorough
written information is provided, experience shows that asylum seekers often do
not understand the essential points.
The information is formulated in overly technical language or mainly in
legal terminology.
In many countries asylum seekers
lack awareness of their own legal position. Often
applicants do not know the current status of the proceedings affecting them and
what information they must contribute at specific stages in the procedure. They
do not understand sufficiently the procedural steps and decisions taken. In
consequence, they are often unable to take sound decisions on their legal
status and well-being.
Most countries provide for legal
assistance free of charge to their own citizens who are
unable to defend their rights before the authorities (owing to the importance
or legal complexity of the issue being decided) or who cannot afford a
professional legal representative. Although these regulations may also be
applied to non-citizens, they are generally limited to procedures before the
courts. Most asylum seekers defending their rights before administrative bodies
are not represented, although the complexity of the legal questions and the
language barrier would demand this.
A few countries have established
independent legal services specialising in asylum procedures.
These services are provided free of charge as a kind of legal accompaniment
through the administrative procedure that applicants can access when lodging
the claim and at any other stage of the process. On the other hand, some
governments declare explicitly that they are not willing to provide or support
legal counselling services. These governments consider legal representation of
asylum seekers to be against the interests of the state.
In these countries international organisations such as the UNHCR and non-governmental organisations provide competent legal counselling services – compensating in part for the failure of governments. Caritas organisations in many countries are performing this function.
Generally, even in the countries
where there is governmental support for legal counselling services, only some
asylum seekers benefit to a sufficient degree.
Finally, it must be stressed that it
is a leading principle of democratic systems that governments should safeguard
the rule of law. This means that governments are obliged to
enable persons under their jurisdiction to enjoy their rights.
Standards on access to high quality information and to legal counselling free of charge
The asylum
seeker should be free to use his/her own language to lodge the application or
he/she should be assisted by an interpreter to fill in the application for
asylum.
The asylum
seeker should have the opportunity to communicate with a member of the UNHCR or
other organisations working on his/her behalf throughout the procedure.
Asylum
seekers have the right to receive information. Information should be freely
available in the asylum seeker’s mother tongue. This includes information
on asylum procedure, on the possibility to appeal and on the legal services
available.
Every asylum
seeker should have access to information services
funded by governmental sources. There must be sufficient personnel to ensure
that these services are accessible at any stage of the procedure.
A future
policy on access to quality information must ensure personal interactive
communication between asylum seekers and a counsellor. It
will be the task of the latter to ensure that the asylum seeker fully
understands the information provided, taking into account inter alia
different levels of education, different cultural background, etc.
Governments
should provide access to legal counselling and
adequate and competent translation, both free of charge and accessible to every
asylum seeker. Legal counselling must be operated by an independent agency.
There is a need for specific training for lawyers representing asylum seekers.
Each asylum
seeker should have a right to the re-evaluation of a rejection of his/her
asylum claim by a lawyer. If there are grounds for appeal, the asylum seeker
should have a right to legal support for this.
Decisions on
applications for asylum are written in the language of the decision-maker,
because it is very important for it to be written in precise terms. It must be
ensured that these decisions are translated – at least orally and
preferably in writing – into a language the asylum seeker understands.
Appropriate training for interpreters should be provided.
There is a
need for intercultural training for all persons giving social and legal
counselling to asylum seekers.
5. Improving asylum procedures and making them shorter
(Length and poor
quality are the main weaknesses)
Concrete and measurable figures on
the average duration of asylum procedures are not
available. However, it can be stated that the length of procedures varies from
case to case – from several days to many years. Generally speaking,
procedures in Central and Eastern European countries seem to be shorter than
those in Western Europe. But procedures in nearly every country can be
considered unduly prolonged.
Admissibility procedures and
accelerated procedures were intended to make the
application process shorter. Instead, these measures, especially those seeking
to determine the state responsible for considering an asylum application, have
prolonged it. Governments and organisations representing refugees’
interests have criticised the application of the Dublin Convention for
prolonging applications by several months.
In some countries, the application
of the safe third country concept alone results in procedures that last more
than a year. In other countries – and this is the worst-case scenario
– the concept results in deadlock, with no country examining the asylum
seeker’s presentation on its merits.
With regard to the “normal
procedure”, the main reason for unacceptable length is – from a
Caritas point of view – to be found in the quality of the
administrative procedure. In many countries, it is
particularly the administrative bodies that first deal with asylum requests
that are inadequately designed and equipped to meet the need of a fast
procedure of high quality.
The asylum authorities’
staff are often underqualified. Generally, decision-makers at
this level are rarely able to grasp the different educational, cultural or
social backgrounds of asylum seekers and therefore they cannot sufficiently
understand the complexity of the issue they are dealing with.
Thus the first interview with the
asylum seeker – which is the main source of information for proceeding
further and the most important basis for the first decision – is often
conducted in an uncomfortable atmosphere. This does
not give asylum seekers confidence in the procedure and in many cases prevents
them from making an adequate presentation.
Government representatives as well
as non-governmental organisations have noted that often, insufficient effort is
taken to research the background of an individual asylum seeker’s
presentation. Instead of attempting verification by studying the available country
of origin information and requesting expert opinions,
decisions are often based on guesswork. This unsatisfactory situation is caused
by lack of ready access to relevant documentation, as well as by time pressure
on decision makers.
Finally it must be stated that decisions,
especially those of the first administrative bodies to consider a claim,
frequently fail to meet the criteria of a proper juridical argument. This is
often due to the inadequate education and qualifications of the decision makers.
Consequently, considerable time is
often lost in this part of the asylum procedure, without establishing
sufficient basis for a substantial review by a higher body or court as to
whether the facts of the case were examined correctly.[10]
It must be acknowledged that in
recent years some countries have made efforts to train the personnel dealing
with asylum applications, with a view to improving the quality of procedures
and decisions. However, although these efforts are appreciated, they have not
led to an acceptable level of competence among the decision-makers. In many
countries, a significant problem is an inadequate understanding of
the skills and resources required. It must be stressed that these critical
remarks are not made with the intention of blaming decision-makers for personal
failure – we are well aware that some of them do their best and also
become emotionally involved in cases.
Some analysts claim that the costs
of care and maintenance of refugees and asylum-seekers in
the reception system account for more than 90% of total state costs, while less
than 10% of total state costs are spent on processing asylum applications. The
latter amount includes the cost of returning rejected asylum-seekers.
It is the aim of governments and non-governmental organisations to reduce the duration of asylum procedures while retaining safeguards to ensure the correct identification of persons in genuine need of protection. Refugees facing a long, uncertain wait, suffer from the length of determination procedures. Shorter procedures are less attractive to people who do not need protection.
>From a Caritas point of view,
the greatest contribution to the achievement of a higher standard of asylum
procedures would be a European-wide initiative to increase
the number of decision-makers, to improve the qualifications of staff, to
reconsider management requirements, to intensify training and to increase
substantially the funds for information technology and external expertise, etc.
These measures would strengthen existing safeguards and also shorten the
procedures.
Standards to shorten and improve procedures
All European
States should share minimum standards on asylum procedures.
Only one
single procedure should be started when a person claims to be in need of
protection. The purpose of this procedure is to examine asylum requests, to
consider subsidiary forms of protection, to safeguard the principle of non-refoulement
and to order expulsion.
An asylum application should be examined in the country where the application is lodged. This would reduce administrative efforts, prevent duplication of procedures (by deciding on both state responsibility and merit) and would thus be less expensive. It would also make allowances for the various reasons a refugee might have for seeking refuge in a specific country. This system should be extended to enable states other than the one where the application was lodged to "opt in" for reasons of existing family ties or cultural relations, on the basis of the principle of double voluntary action[11].
An
independent actor should take the decision in the body of first instance. This
could be achieved by introducing a double decision system – the authority
makes a decision and an independent actor, such as the UNHCR or a
non-governmental organisation, also makes a decision. If the decisions are
identical, the procedure could be shortened.
Administrative
bodies dealing with asylum claims should be developed to become highly
qualified to meet the requirements of complex asylum procedures. Their capacity
in terms of time and quality of decisions should be increased, and in
particular the required qualifications of staff must be newly defined: asylum
decision-makers should have extensive skills in dealing with persons of the
different cultural backgrounds involved; they should also have high competence
in communication. The new salaries of the staff must be defined according to
the professional skills required. Regular training and access to information
technology should be provided. Research and documentation centres should be
created, to compile country of origin information and asylum-related
jurisprudence. Where additional expertise is necessary, asylum authorities
should be able to consult expert opinion.
Asylum procedures should be conducted free from any discrimination. It is necessary to establish confidence and trust in asylum procedures.
Caritas Europa argues for a substantial investment in improving the quality of asylum procedures.
In this connection, research is needed to determine whether investing two or three times the amount spent on asylum procedures today to improve their quality would lead to a tremendous decrease in the costs of social care and maintenance, etc., of asylum seekers. The hypothesis to be examined is: investing in a high quality procedure will shorten its duration, safeguard the rule of law, decrease the costs of reception and deter persons who do not need protection from abusing the asylum process.
6. Background
It is generally accepted that the
creation of an area of “freedom, security and justice” must include
the creation of a Common European Asylum System. With the aim of creating a
fair and efficient asylum procedure as part of such a system, the EU Commission
has been elaborating a proposal for a Council directive[12]
on the “Definition of common minimum conditions for reception of asylum
seekers (with a particular attention to the situation of children)”.
After the French Delegation
presented a discussion paper on reception conditions in October 2000, the
Council of the European Union agreed on conditions for the reception of asylum
seekers[13].
These Council conclusions provide guidelines for the future Community
instrument on reception conditions, focusing particularly on its scope, on
information, stay, residence, financial and material assistance, work, health
care, family unity, schooling of minors, vulnerable individuals and
coordination with non-governmental organizations.
In July 2000 the UNHCR presented the findings of a recent study on reception conditions for asylum seekers in the 15 Member States of the European Union and recommended reception standards for asylum seekers in the European Union.[14] The UNHCR pointed out that “asylum seekers are entitled to benefit from the protection afforded by various universal and regional human rights instruments, as well as applicable refugee law standards, all of which provide the basic framework for standards and norms of treatment in the area of reception.[15] It is essential that states ensure that the fundamental rights and basic needs of asylum seekers are met during the asylum procedure, and in particular that special efforts are made to reduce the length of the procedures.”
Throughout Europe, Caritas – and other non-governmental organisations – have become increasingly involved in reception-related services, sometimes in co-operation with the authorities and to some extent filling basic gaps in governmental assistance. By providing material assistance, running reception facilities and counselling services, Caritas has gained large-scale grass-root experience in this area of work.
Against this
background Caritas Europa has decided to make reception a priority issue in its
migration and asylum work. The aim is to define standards from a Caritas point
of view. This position will be used as a guideline within Caritas, for the
taking of positions at national level as well as for lobbying at the
international level.
7. Caritas Europa: Assistance to persons in need
Caritas Europa, as one of the seven regions within
Caritas Internationalis, is currently composed of 48 national member
organisations from 44 European countries. Caritas Europa member organisations
provide a broad range of services for people in need and people endangered by
social exclusion such as the elderly, the handicapped, unemployed families,
foreigners and other groups. Services include offering care and assistance, the
running of qualified counselling services, professional education of staff,
etc.
Caritas
Europa has identified and is committed to work on four major spheres of urgent
activity:
ð The
great social differences between the individual European nations and the
process of European unification;
ð The
growing poverty and social inequality within individual countries and the
future shaping of social policies;
ð Migration
and asylum issues;
ð The
growing gap between rich industrialised nations and the poor countries of the
“Third World”, the accelerated process of impoverishment in many of
these countries, and a development policy which combats the causes of
impoverishment.
In addressing these issues Caritas Europa is motivated by the Gospel and by Catholic social teaching. In particular:
We are led
by fundamental Gospel convictions that it is the duty of all Christians to give
food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, to give shelter to strangers and the
homeless, to clothe the naked and to visit the sick and prisoners (cf. Mt 25,
31-46). We also believe, as the Gospel impresses upon us, that we encounter God
in every one of these “least of my brothers and sisters”. This means
that the truthfulness and credibility of our Christian existence will be seen
and measured by our practice of justice and mercy. It is especially for this
reason that the insights of the 1971 Bishops’ Synod “On Justice in
the World” provide us with decisive guidance: “For us the
commitment to justice and participation in reshaping the world are fundamental
elements of proclaiming the Gospel, the Church’s mission to redeem
humankind and to liberate it from all forms of oppression”.[16]
Most Caritas Europa member organisations are active on
asylum and immigration. The main aim of Caritas’ work in this field is to
offer realistic solutions to people who, for whatever reason, need assistance
because they are resident in a country other than their home country. Caritas’
programmes include projects for the reception of asylum seekers, provision of
legal and social counselling services, facilitation of processes for
integration of refugees and permanent residents as well as resettlement and
voluntary return programmes. While filling the gaps in governmental assistance,
Caritas stresses states’ responsibility to ensure dignified treatment of
asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants, one of the most vulnerable groups
in Europe’s societies. On the basis of our direct practical experience,
Caritas conducts policy and advocacy work with the aim of changing structural
weaknesses.
Approved by Caritas Europa Executive Board.
This
paper is supported by:
- C.E.A.R. - Spanish Commission for
Refugee Assistance
Plaza de la Constitución 2
SPAIN-28760 Tres Cantos – Madrid
- European Network Against Racism
(ENAR)
Rue de la Charité 43
B-1210 Brussels
- La Commission Justice et Paix
Rue Maurice Liétart 31/6
B-1150 Bruxelles
- International Catholic Migration
Commission (ICMC)
4, Rue de Pascale
B-1040 Bruxelles
- Jesuit Refugee Service Europe
(JRS-Europe)
31/5, Rue Maurice Liétart
B-1150
Brussels
- Quakers’ Commission for
European Affairs (QCEA)
Sqare Ambiorix 50
B-1000 Brussels
- Pax Christi International
Rue du Vieux Marché aux Grains 21
B-1000 Brussels
List of
Caritas Europa member organisations
Caritas Albania
Caritas Andorrana
Caritas Armenia
Caritas Austria
Caritas
Belarus
Caritas Bosnia-Herzegovina
Caritas Bulgaria
Caritas Belgium (Caritas Catholica Belgica; Caritas Secours International Belgique; Caritas Vlaanderen; Caritas en Communauté Francophone et Germanophone)
Caritas Ceska
Caritas Croatia
Caritas Danmark
CAFOD
CASC
Caritas
Española
Caritas Estonia
Caritas Finland
Secours Catholique Caritas France
Caritas Georgia
Caritas Germany
Caritas Hellas
Caritas Hungary
TROCAIRE Ireland
Caritas Iceland
Caritas Italiana
Caritas Latvia
Caritas Lithuania
Caritas Luxembourg
Caritas Macedonia
Caritas Malta
Caritas Moldova
Caritas Monaco (associate member)
CORDAID/Caritas Nederlands
Caritas Norway
Caritas Poland
Caritas Portuguesa
Caritas Romania
Caritas Russia
SCIAF Scotland
Caritas Switzerland
Slovenska Charita, Slovenia
Slovenska Katolicka Charita,
Slovakia
Caritas Sverige
Caritas Turkey
Caritas Ukraine (Caritas of Greek
Catholic Church; Caritas Spes of the Roman Catholic Church)
Caritas Yugoslavia