UNHCR’s
Observations
on
the
European Commission's Proposal for a Council Regulation
establishing
the criteria and mechanisms for determining
the
Member State responsible for examining
an
asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country
national (COM (2001) 447 final)
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Following
the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and as part of the establishment
of a common asylum system called for by the Tampere Council Conclusions, the
European Commission started in March 2000 the preparation of a proposal for a
Regulation aimed at replacing the mechanism established under the Dublin
Convention for the allocation of responsibility for asylum-seekers. To this end, the Commission issued on
21 March 2000 a Working Document entitled "Revisiting the Dublin
Convention: developing Community legislation for determining which Member State
is responsible for considering an asylum application submitted in one of the
Member States".[1]
The Working Document offers a critical analysis of the objectives and of the
functioning of the Dublin system, and presents possible alternatives for its
replacement.
2. The
Commission also conducted an evaluation of the practical implementation of the
Dublin Convention, the conclusions of which were published in a document
entitled "Evaluation of the Dublin Convention".[2]
Finally, further to extensive consultations with Member States, UNHCR and
several non-governmental organisations, the Commission issued on 26 July 2001 a
Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for
determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application
lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.
3. UNHCR
considers that, in the light of the experience accumulated by States Parties to
the Dublin Convention during the time that it has been in operation, a
re-assessment of the objectives that the Convention sought to attain and of the
criteria that it set out for distributing responsibilities among Member States
is not only amply justified, but is also necessary and timely. UNHCR,
therefore, welcomes that this re-assessment is now being undertaken and, in
this connection, it wishes to offer some general observations concerning the
protection principles involved, as well as some specific comments on the
proposed Regulation.
4. UNHCR
notes that, in the Working Document referred to above as well as in the
Explanatory Memorandum attached to the current proposal for a Regulation, the
Commission acknowledges that the system for apportioning responsibilities
established by the Dublin Convention presents many inadequacies and
drawbacks. The Commission further
notes that a system in which responsibility would depend solely on where the
application is lodged, would be “the most credible alternative
scenario”, as it "would probably make it possible to set up a clear,
viable system that meets a number of objectives: rapidity and certainty; no
"refugees in orbit"; resolution of the problem of multiple asylum
applications; and a guarantee of family unity”.[3]
While UNHCR would have been very interested in a more thorough exploration of
this alternative, the Commission's proposed Regulation is basically shaped
along the same lines as those of the Dublin Convention.
5. It
is generally accepted that the primary responsibility for considering an asylum
application lies in principle with the State to which it has been submitted.
Such State may be able to transfer that responsibility to another State if it
ensures that that other State is safe and that it will receive and examine the
application in accordance with generally agreed international standards of
refugee protection.
6. Within
this understanding, UNHCR considers that bilateral or multilateral agreements
on the transfer of responsibility for examining asylum applications may play an
important role in the proper management of population flows. At the same time,
such agreements on transfer of responsibility should not be conceived solely as
instruments of migration control, but should be seen as an integral part of the
panoply of tools that States have at their disposal for addressing refugee
situations in a fair and equitable manner.
7. It
is, therefore, crucial that any arrangements for apportioning responsibility
for the examination of asylum requests adequately ensure that the protection
needs of the persons concerned are met and a suitable durable solution
achieved. In this connection, the fact that the applicant has already
meaningful links with the State to which the transfer is intended, is a
relevant consideration. In UNHCR’s view, family connections, cultural
ties, knowledge of the language, the possession of a residence permit and the
applicant’s previous periods of residence in the other State would
constitute meaningful links for this purpose.
Specific comments on the Commission's
proposal
8. The
general principle informing the Commission’s proposed Regulation is that,
with few exceptions, responsibility for examining an asylum application lies
with the Member State which played the most significant role regarding the
applicant's entry into or residence on the territories of the Member States.
Thus, according to the proposal, the Member State that has issued a visa to a
third country national will be responsible for examining an asylum application
that such person may subsequently submit.[4]
The proposed Regulation further provides that if a third country national has
managed to enter irregularly the territory of a Member State, that Member State
will be responsible for examining an asylum application that such person may
submit subsequently.[5]
This provision may -- unless it is complemented by additional, corrective
measures -- create serious imbalances in the distribution of asylum applicants
among Member States. Such imbalances would not only pose serious problems to
those States that are situated on the periphery of the Union’s territory,
but it may also have negative consequences for the protection of asylum-seekers
and refugees. One of those consequences may be the delay in the processing of
claims which almost inevitably results when States are confronted with
transfers of significant numbers of applications. More worrisome, though, is
the risk that States that are likely to be affected by a disproportionate
number of applicants as a result of the control-oriented criteria on the
apportioning of responsibility, may be tempted to adopt policies aimed at
further restricting access to their territory and perhaps even to their asylum
procedure.
9. This
being said, UNHCR welcomes that the proposed Regulation introduces some
valuable improvements to the regime laid down by the Dublin Convention. These
include the following:
(a) The
Dublin Convention provides that if the applicant for asylum has a member of his
or her family who is residing in another Member State as a recognised refugee,
that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application, provided
that the persons concerned so desire.[6]
The proposed Regulation expands this entitlement to include also the
applicant's family member who has an asylum application that is being
considered under the normal procedure.[7]
UNHCR wishes to submit that it would also be appropriate to extend the same
entitlement in cases where the applicant has a member of his or her family who
is an ordinary resident in another Member State, as well as in cases where the
member of the family is a national of another Member State;
(b) Under
the Dublin Convention, the notion of “member of the family” is
circumscribed to “the spouse of the applicant for asylum or his or her
unmarried child who is a minor of under eighteen years, or his or her father or
mother where the applicant for asylum is himself or herself an unmarried child
who is a minor of under eighteen years”.[8] The proposed Regulation defines
“family members” to include “an asylum seeker's spouse or
unmarried partner in a stable relationship, if the legislation of the Member
State responsible treats unmarried couples in the same way as married couples,
provided that the couple was formed in the country of origin; his unmarried
minor children under the age of eighteen, irrespective of the nature of their
filiation or his ward; his father, his mother or his guardian, if the asylum
seeker is himself an unmarried minor under the age of eighteen; where
appropriate, other persons to whom the applicant is related and who used to
live in the same home in the country of origin, if one of the persons concerned
is dependent on the other”.[9]
UNHCR strongly welcomes this proposal, which is in line with the approach
advocated by its Executive Committee in Conclusion No. 88 (XLX) of 1999; and,
(c) The
proposed Regulation provides that the responsibility for considering an
application for asylum submitted to a Member State by an unaccompanied minor
shall be transferred to another Member State if there is in that Member State a
member of the family of the minor who is able to take charge of him or her,
provided it has been determined that the transfer of responsibility is in the
best interests of the child.[10]
This provision, which is not found in the Dublin Convention, is most welcome
from UNHCR's perspective, not least because it implements one of the key
provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
10. UNHCR
further appreciates that the Commission's proposal for a Regulation stipulates
that the applicant shall be informed immediately -- and in a language which he
or she understands -- of the fact that a request has been sent to another
Member State to take charge of the responsibility for dealing with his or her
claim.[11]
11. UNHCR
also appreciates that the proposed Regulation reaffirms the
asylum-seeker’s entitlement – already recognised in the Dublin
Convention– to have access to any data that is processed concerning him
or her, and to have corrected, erased or blocked, any part of those data which
is incomplete or inaccurate.[12]
12. A
retrograde development in relation to the regime of the Dublin Convention is
that under the proposed Regulation, appeals against decisions on transfer of
responsibility do not have suspensive effect.[13]
UNHCR considers that the suspensive effect of the appeal is not only important
to avoid unnecessary hardship in the case that the appeal is successful, but it
is also important for reasons of procedural efficiency. UNHCR would insist, therefore, that the
principle of suspensive effect of appeals against a decision on transfer be
maintained in the proposed Regulation.
Conclusion
13. UNHCR
considers that, while the Commission’s proposal presents a number of
positive aspects, the criteria used for apportioning responsibility are likely
to produce significant inequalities in terms of burden-sharing within the
European Union. Such a situation will not only affect the countries concerned,
but may also have adverse effects on the protection of asylum-seekers and
refugees.
14. UNHCR
wishes, therefore, to strongly recommend that the mechanism foreseen by the
proposed Regulation be complemented by additional measures and criteria,
including equitable burden-sharing arrangement within the European Union. In
the absence of such complementary measures, a system where the responsibility
for examining an asylum application normally remains with the State to which it
has been submitted may be the most appropriate one, as initially indicated by
the Commission. Within such a system, transfers of responsibility could be
undertaken when the imperatives of protection or durable solution so necessitate
in the individual case.
******************
UNHCR Geneva
February 2002
[1] SEC(2000) 522 final of 21 March 2000.
[2] SEC (2001) 756 final of 13 June 2001.
[3] Explanatory Memorandum to the Commission’s proposal, paragraph 2.2.
[4] Article 9(2). Detailed rules are given in connection with applicants who are in possession of a visa issued on the written authorisation of another Member State, a visa which has expired, or more than one visa issued by different Member States.
[5] Article 10. That State shall cease to be responsible, however, if the applicant has been living at least for six months in the Member State where the application for asylum is made.
[6] Dublin Convention, Article 4.
[7] Draft Regulation, Articles 7 and 8.1.
[8] Dublin Convention, Article 4.
[9] Draft Regulation, Article 2(i).
[10] Draft Regulation, Article 6.
[11] Draft Regulation, Article 18.4.
[12] Draft Regulation, Article 22.
[13] Draft Regulation, Article 20.2.