|
No. 3 |
Summer 2002 |
ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Policy developments..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
UNHCR.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Global Consultations.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Annual Tripartite Consultations on
Resettlement............................................................................................................................. 3
Guidelines on International
Protection: "Gender-Related Persecution" and "Membership of a
Particular Social Group".................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
UNHCR Policy on Refugee Women and
Guidelines on Their Protection: An Assessment of Ten Years of Implementation....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Meeting the Rights and Protection
Needs of Refugee Children: An Independent Evaluation of the Impact of UNHCR 's
Activities..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Population Data..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
The UNHCR-ICMC (International
Catholic Migration Commission) Resettlement Deployment Scheme,......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
53rd session of UNHCR’s Executive
Committee............................................................................................................................... 4
COUNCIL OF EUROPE.................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Recommendation Rec (2002)5 of the
Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of women against
violence..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Parliamentary Assembly Spring
meetings............................................................................................................................................. 5
Sub-Committee on refugees and ah
hoc Sub-Committee on receiving conditions and capacities in European seaports
for asylum seekers........................................................................................................................ 5
OSCE............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Afghanistan................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Austria........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Belgium..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Czech Republic..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Finland....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
France......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Italy.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
The Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Norway....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Spain............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Sweden....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Switzerland.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
UK................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
OTHER INFORMATION................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Publications............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
New Websites...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Conferences and Workshops....................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Legal Developments................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
COUNCIL OF EUROPE................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
UNHCR....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Summary of UNHCR's current position
on repatriation of refugees to Sri Lanka...................................................... 14
Country up-dates.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Australia: recent legislative
changes affecting the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)............................................... 14
Austria...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Denmark................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Germany................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Germany................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Ireland...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Netherlands........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Sweden.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Switzerland........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
United Kingdom................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
USA........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Brussels Developments............................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
The Spanish Presidency................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Danish Presidency................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Justice and Home Affairs Councils.......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Council of the European Union.................................................................................................................................................................. 14
European Commission...................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
European Parliament........................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
ECRE news............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
|
No. 3 |
Summer 2002 |
ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE
The discussion of the final meeting held in Geneva on May 22-24 focused on three main issues: voluntary repatriation, resettlement and local settlement. Voluntary repatriation gave rise to a very rich debate especially on the concept of safety in the context of repatriation. Broad consensus was reached on several considerations such as recognition of voluntary repatriation as the durable solution sought by a large number of refugees, the right to return and the responsibility of the country of origin to receive back their nationals and to create the necessary conditions to return.
Concerning the topic of resettlement, general support was reaffirmed for resettlement as a vital tool for protection, as a durable solution, and an instrument of international solidarity and responsibility. Current constraints to its effective implementation were also highlighted.
In the course of the discussion on local integration, there were several issues raised by delegations: the dangers of confinement in camps over extended periods of time; the difficulties faced by developing countries hosting refugees in terms of economic; social and environmental costs; the threat to local and national security, etc. Additional themes discussed were: protection of refugee women and children. The outcome of the discussions held during the meeting will be incorporated into UNHCR Agenda for Protection.
Agenda for Protection
A complete text of the Agenda for Protection was discussed by UNHCR Standing Committee at its regular meeting from 24-26 June 2002 in Geneva. Governments were asked to give their comments on the proposed text on Tuesday afternoon (June 25). The Standing Committee decided to transmit the revised text for endorsement to the Executive Committee at its 53rd session which will be held from September 30 to October 4, 2002.
Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement
The Consultations took place on June 18-19 in Geneva. For the first time ever a representative of the European Commission participated in the meeting where the ECRE/US Committee for Refugees Research Project on ‘Protecting a Refugee’s Right to Flee’ was presented. UNHCR capacity to process resettlement cases and the need for UNHCR to be able to better deal with the issue were also discussed. NGOs also raised the necessity to explore possible solutions to better co-ordinate activities of refugee organisations from different continents.
These guidelines result from the Second Track of the Global Consultations on International Protection and complement the “UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”(1992). The first document focuses specifically on the interpretation of the refugee definition contained in Article 1A(2) of the Convention from a gender perspective and proposes procedural practises for consideration of gender-related claims. The second provides legal interpretative guidance on assessing claims, asserting that a claimant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of his/her belonging to a particular social group. A full text is now available on the UNHCR website: http://www.unhcr.ch, Protecting Refugees, Legal Protection, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status.
The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children has produced an assessment of the extent to which UNHCR has successfully implemented the principles contained in the “Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women” adopted by UNHCR in 1991. It considers the measures taken by UNHCR over the past decade and the effectiveness of its activities and progress towards the goal of establishing gender equality. For further information, please contact: wrwcr@womenscommission.org.
The UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit (EPAU) have produced a report on UNHCR activities in the field of refugee children. The evaluation starts with findings regarding actions specific to refugee children reviewing UNHCR policy and guidelines on the issue and then moves to address organisational issues looking at those constraining the implementation of the protection. The report is based on field mission findings, focus groups work and a confidential field questionnaire. An electronic version of the report is available on UNHCR website: http://www.unhcr.ch, Research/Evaluation, Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Evaluation Reports.
The Population Data Unit, Population and Geographic Data Section of UNHCR has published a report on “Selected Indicators Measuring Capacity and Contributions of Host Countries” - April 2002. The study compares refugee populations in more than 160 asylum countries and territories, in relation to national population size, Gross Domestic Product and national surface area. The main trends emerging from the statistics are that compared with the national population, the countries ranking the highest are Armenia, Eritrea and Slovenia. Compared with GDP, the top ranking countries are Armenia, Eritrea and the Central African Republic and, finally, compared with the national surface area, the main countries are Armenia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Belgium. The full report is available on the UNHCR website: http://www.unhcr.ch, Statistics, Special Reports.
The Population Data Unit has also produced a report on “Asylum Trends in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand” - January-March 2002 and a report on “Trends in Asylum Applications Lodged in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand and Japan” - April 2002. Data have been provided by Governments. For Greece and the UK such data were not available, therefore, these countries do not appear in some of the tabulations of the first report. Between January and March 2002 the number of applications submitted has decreased by 12% compared with the number recorded during the fourth quarter of 2001. In April, there was a relatively significant increase in the number of applications submitted in Austria, Bulgaria, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, whereas a decrease was recorded in other countries such as Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Romania and Australia. The reports are available on the UNHCR website: http://www.unhcr.ch, Statistics, Asylum Trends.
The UNHCR-ICMC (International Catholic Migration Commission) Resettlement Deployment Scheme,
which began in 1997, is a program to support the interviewing of refugees for resettlement. It offers an opportunity to bring skilled people into a UNHCR 'field' setting and gives the opportunity to understand the nature of the challenges that come from the current global refugee situation and the role of UNHCR in meeting those challenges. Further details of how to apply and an online application form are available on the UNHCR website: http://www.unhcr.ch, Resettlement (Quick Find), Partnership in resettlement, The UNHCR-ICMC Resettlement Deployment Scheme. You can also visit ICMC website: http://www.icmc.netidocs/en/search/unhcricmc.
53rd session of UNHCR’s Executive Committee
The 53rd session of UNHCR’s Executive Committee will take place on 30 September – 4 October 2002 in Geneva.
The NGO-UNHCR Pre-Excom
Consultations will take place on 25 – 26 September and the UNHCR Standing
Committee will meet on 26 September.
On 30th April 2002 the
Committee of Ministers adopted the document recommending States' governments to
review their legislation in order to guarantee 'women the recognition,
enjoyment, exercise and protection of their human rights and fundamental
freedoms'. It affirms States' obligation to prevent, investigate and punish
acts of violence and to protect victims of such acts. It asks for an
improvement of the interactions between scientific community, NGOs and
political and legislative as well as health, educational and social bodies to
organise co-ordinated actions against violence. The Recommendation is available
at http://cm.coe.int//stat/E/Public/2002/adopted_texts/reccomandations/2002r5.htm.
Parliamentary Assembly Spring meetings
The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly held its Spring meetings from 27th to 29th May in Lucerne. On 27th May, a European Day for Asylum, Migration and Refugees was organised by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. The discussion focussed on three main issues: Swiss policies with regard to migration and refugees, the situation of irregular migrants and a pan-European Perspective of the EU on the future migration and asylum policies.
The Standing Committee meeting held on 29th May had among its main topics the humanitarian situation of the displaced Kurdish population in Turkey. The positive developments in the humanitarian situation of the displaced Kurdish population as compared to the last report in 1998 were noted. It was also highlighted that returnees receive financial and material assistance from the Turkish authorities. However, a state of emergency is still in force and a number of measures aiming at facilitating mass returns have been discussed. For a copy of the report used for the debate, please visit the Parliamentary Assembly website: http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp.
On 30th-31st May, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the CoE Parliamentary Assembly and the Institute for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies (ISUFI) of the University of Lecce organised a conference on the issue of increased number of asylum seekers arriving at European seaports. The conference, which was held in the Italian town of Lecce, brought together parliamentarians, academics, and representatives of the Italian Interior Ministry, UNHCR, the Italian Refugee Council and Amnesty International, as well as local authorities. The main topics discussed include reception conditions for asylum seekers, access to legal advice and specific problems of arrivals at major seaports and coastal areas. The text of the proceedings will be published in Autumn 2002. The report will be presented at the beginning of 2003. The delay follows the decision to include in the report the issue of asylum seekers arriving at coastal areas.
The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography organised a conference on 'Hearing on the humanitarian situation of refugees and displaced persons in CIS countries'. It took place on 11-12 June in Borisoglebsk and Voroney, Russia. The programme included field visits, meetings with refugees, local authorities and NGOs followed by a seminar.
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has produced five reports examining racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance in Estonia, Georgia, Ireland, Italy and Romania. The five new reports form part of a second cycle of monitoring of Council of Europe member States' laws, policies and practices in order to combat racism. ECRI's country-specific reports (available on the web site http://www.coe.int/t/E/human rights/ecri/) cover all member States from the perspective of the protection of human rights. The second reports examine the implementation of proposals made to the government in previous reports. They provide a general up-date and also contain a deeper analysis of selected issues of particular concern in the relevant country. For further information, please contact the Council of Europe Press Division: PressUnit@coe.int.
Wolfgang Petrisch, in his last address as High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina on May 9, urged the OSCE Delegations to lobby their governments for support for the process of return of refugees and displaced persons in the Balkan country. He expressed his concern about the lack of financial and material assistance provided to returnees to rebuild their homes. For the full text of Mr Petrisch's speech, please visit http://www.osce.orgipress_rel/documents/2002-208-cio.pdf.
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights has published its final report on 'Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting: Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women'. Among other recommendations, the report encourages participating States to implement a gender sensitive approach to refugee determination procedures and refugee protection. It also underlines the necessity to give international protection to those whom their own state is unwilling or unable to protect from abuses, including abuses committed by armed groups and private individuals. The full report is available on the OSCE website at http://www.osce.org/odihr/documents/reports/shdm/finrep_shdm_18-19mar2002.pdf.
Together with UNHCR the OSCE Mission in Kosovo conducts regular surveys on the Situation of ethnic minorities in Kosovo. The ninth OSCE-UNHCR joint report highlights the important progress made in 2001 on the return of minorities to the country, but also underlines how the lack of full freedom of movement continues to constitute the largest barrier to integration of minorities and participation in Kosovo society. The report provides a series of recommendations for further improvements in areas of security, freedom of movement, non-discrimination, poverty, participation, dialogue and return. The report is available in English, Albanian and Serbian languages on the OSCE website at http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/minorities/.
The 11th OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Annual Session will take place in Berlin from July 6 to July 10, 2002. The report from the General Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions will be on the theme 'Confronting Terrorism: Global Challenge in the 21st Century'. The focus of this report is on the nature of terrorism itself and on the dynamic tension between fighting terrorism and respecting fundamental rights and civil liberties. It identifies the rights of refugees and migrants as a matter of special concern after the events of September 11 and underlines that asylum-seekers who are fleeing persecution and violence must not become victims of anti-terrorism policies. Further information can be found on OSCE website: http://www.osce.org/news/in_focus/07-06- 2002_pa_annualsession.php3.
The UNHCR Afghan Asylum Statistics – June 2002 are now available on the organisation’s website (www.unhcr.ch, statistics). The report highlights the sharp increase in Afghan asylum-seekers arriving in Europe during the last decade and especially during the last five years when conditions in Afghanistan further worsened. Refugees started to leave countries of first asylum, usually neighbouring countries, fearing for their lives. It also compares asylum claims lodged by Iraqi and Afghan nationals in Europe since 2001, showing how during the first half of 2002, Iraqi asylum seekers have moved back to replace Afghans as the top nationality seeking asylum in Europe.
The Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees (DACAAR) has published ‘Expected Repatriation Patterns – 2002: Results of a Survey in Refugee Camps in NWFP’. The survey is based on more than 800 interviews made in 28 refugee areas in Pakistan and offers an informed account of issues and factors of concern to the Afghan refugees, such as security, employment opportunities, education facilities, health facilities, discrimination, etc. The full report is available on the DACAAR website: http://www.dacaar.org/news/16042002/dacaarsurvey.pdf
The Austrian Minister of Interior has announced a plan to open two reception centres for asylum seekers. A new accelerated procedure will also be introduced in these centres which will be the only place, together with check-points at the country border, where asylum seekers will be allowed to apply for asylum. Decisions will be made within 48-72 hours maximum after the presentation of the application. Moreover, it will not be possible anymore to apply for asylum at Austrian diplomatic representations abroad.
On 23 May, the Belgian Federal Government decided on the introduction of several measures aimed at limiting the choice of residence of asylum seekers. Social welfare offices are responsible for providing assistance to asylum seekers and are then reimbursed fully by the federal state. From now on 100% reimbursement will be possible only if the asylum seeker resides in the designated area. If not, no reimbursement may be expected. Exceptions are however possible.
On May 7, British officials resumed checks at Prague airport on passengers waiting to board their flights to the UK. It is the eleventh round of checks which began in June 2001 and have been going on with interruptions since then. Unfortunately it is not possible to foresee when a new round will start and how long it will last. The measure has been instituted after an influx of asylum seekers, mainly of Roma origin.
There are reports that a growing number of Roma in the Ostrava region in eastern Czech Republic are trying to leave the country as rising unemployment has led to discrimination against the gypsies. Japan has apparently become a potential target among Roma asylum-seekers as Czech nationals are allowed to enter Japan visa-free under a reciprocal agreement between the two countries.
More than 40 Romanian Roma asylum seekers took off from the Salmaijärvi reception centre near Kajaani and vanished into the Finnish countryside. Some of them had already received notification that their applications had been rejected. A few days before, more than 70 had left Finland for Russia, the destination determined by the fact that the rejection carries with it a ban on entry to all countries in the Schengen zone. Some 53 other would-be refugees whose asylum applications had been rejected had been sent back to Bucharest on a charter flight.
About 500 members of the Romanian’s Roma minority have arrived in Finland this year to apply for political asylum. 235 have had their applications denied or have voluntarily cancelled them. Some 200 are still waiting for a decision on their status. All decisions so far have been turned down as apparently groundless.
On June 25, France and Britain agreed on a joint plan to tighten security to try to stem the flow of people trying to travel through the Channel Tunnel illegally but failed to agree on a timetable to close the Sangatte refugee camp near Calais. The UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett and the French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to meet again on July 12 in Paris to try to work out the problem. The plan includes a new double fence to be built around the French railways - SNCF – freight terminal by the end of July, British technology to be installed at Calais next month and aimed at detecting illegal immigrants, other high-technology machines to be put in place to spot fake passports and other forged documents in France, joint teams of intelligence officers to be set up on both sides of the tunnel to track illegal immigration.
NB since the time of
writing, the new immigration bill has been approved by the Upper House
On June 4, the Italian Lower House approved the text of the new Immigration Bill. 279 voted in favour and 203 against. The so-called Fini-Bossi Act is now back to the Upper House for a second vote. If it passes in its present version:
non-EU foreigners will only be able to live in the country if they have arranged work before entering and they will have to leave if they lose their job and they are not able to find another employment;
they will receive residency permits only for the duration of their employment contracts, up to a maximum of two years;
family reunion will be more difficult: immigrants will be allowed to bring their wife or husband and children only if they are under 18. However, it might be possible for children over 18 to join their parents if they are not able to support themselves financially or if they need special care;
foreigners will also have to provide fingerprints for identification purposes;
immigrants already having been expelled will be treated as criminals if they are caught entering the country a second time and will be liable to imprisonment.
The new Bill also incorporates provisions on asylum seekers and for this reason, it has been highly criticised by the UN High Commissioner, Ruud Lubbers, as well as by Italian refugee organisations. All asked the Italian government to present a separate Bill to deal with asylum issues and to suppress Article 27 and Article 28 of the document under discussion and devoted to asylum. It has to be noted that Italy is the only EU country without a comprehensive asylum law. Under the previous government a proposal for such a document had been put forward but it was not possible to obtain parliamentary approval before the end of its mandate.
The two above-mentioned provisions amend a previous act dated back in 1990 (LEGGE 28 Febbraio 1990, n.39). The new Bill:
· suppresses the possibility of a temporary contribution (up to 45 days) in favour of those without sufficient means and accommodation. The Ministry of Interior will provide, on an annual basis, and depending on the resources of the National Fund (see below), financial support to local authorities responsible for supplying assistance and services to asylum seekers;
·
sets up different bodies which will be
responsible for dealing with asylum applications: Territorial commissions (i.e. commissions located across
Italy) will be taking the decision concerning refugee status. Decisions will be
written and communicated to the applicants with all the information necessary
to lodge an appeal. The National Commission
for the right to asylum coordinates the territorial commissions, provides
training for their members and, most important, decides on cessation and
removal of refugee status.
The National Fund for asylum policy and services will finance the
activities and services provided by local governments to refugees especially with regards to accommodation and
essential needs.
· indicates in which cases applicants can be detained at border check-points or in accommodation centres depending on the different reasons for detention;
· provides an accelerated procedure when the applicant has tried to enter the country avoiding controls or when he/she has already been expelled or his claim has been rejected; the decision is to be delivered within 3 days from the applicant’s interview. Rejected asylum seekers can ask the territorial commission to re-examine the decision. It will be possible to lodge an appeal to the competent tribunal within 15 days from the territorial commission’s communication confirming the negative decision. The appeal procedure, which can also be started abroad at diplomatic representations, does not suspend the decision and the applicant will be asked to leave the country. However, he/she can ask for a permit to stay in the country until the final decision is reached.
Other developments
At the end of May, the Italian government communicated to local authorities that the so-called National Programme for Reception would see its funds cut by 70% by the end of the year. Refugees will therefore have to move to new accommodation centres to be built at the country border. The Programme allowed applicants waiting a decision on their status to access education and employment facilitating their integration in the community.
On May 7, Italy and Cyprus held talks on bilateral measures to help find a common policy against illegal immigration. The Italian Minister for European Affairs, Rocco Buttiglione, announced that negotiations were under way on a readmission agreement with Cyprus. The Mediterranean Island already has similar agreements with Syria and Lebanon. If such an agreement is signed migrants, including asylum seekers, will be sent from one country to another, and in the case of asylum seekers it may mean the country they fled. The Italian Minister of Interior is expected to be in Cyprus on June 28-29 to sign the agreement.
The Dutch political parties
VVD, CDA and LPF have found an agreement on the asylum agenda: asylum seekers,
without papers to prove their refugee status, will not have access to the
asylum procedure. They will be given three months to produce the relevant
documentation. It is, however, unclear whether, during the above-mentioned
period, they will be detained or placed in ad hoc reception centres. Biomedical screening of people’s eyes
could also be used to check the identity of applicants and ensure their
passports or papers are not fakes.
Following the high increase
in the number of asylum seekers from Eastern Europe in Norway over the past
year, the Immigration Directorate and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are
launching an extensive information campaign in Russia and Ukraine aimed at
limiting the number of applications by unqualified asylum seekers. Three out of
four applicants were refused asylum in 2001. Several firms in Eastern Europe
have specialised in package tours for asylum seekers to Scandinavia, and Norway
in particular, providing individuals with wrong information. This information
campaign will provide and explain the criteria for receiving asylum in Norway.
On May 6, just two days before Human Rights
Watch report on unaccompanied children in Spain and Morocco (see Publications)
was published, the local government of Melilla decided to stop the reception of
unaccompanied minors entering the country without permit. The Spanish Minors
law requires that an unaccompanied minor must be under the legal ward of the
government of the autonomous communities (Comunidades autonomas de
España) which are also responsible for the accommodation and basic needs
of minors. At the moment, most of the minors are legally warded by the local
government of Melilla, however some of the children are not provided with basic
accommodation.
The Spanish government is considering ending the system allowing illegal immigrants to become legal residents after five years of living in the country. They will also be required to speak Spanish.
The Swedish government has announced that rejected Iraqi asylum seekers from the Kurdish region in northern Iraq will soon be repatriated. The decision has been taken considering that the situation in that area has now stabilised and an agreement with Turkey has been signed allowing rejected asylum seekers transit through its territory to go back to northern Iraq. Those whose cases are rejected will be able to return voluntarily under the auspices of the IOM and the Anatolian Development Foundation.
The Swedish government has also decided that asylum policy regarding Bosnia can be revised. All cases will be examined on the same principle as regular asylum cases. This means that the category of ‘political-humanitarian reasons’ will no longer apply to Bosnians. Many of those waiting final decisions on their status might therefore have their applications turned down.
In order to speed up the processing of asylum applications and therefore to cut the waiting period for asylum seekers, the Swedish government has made available more funds which will be allocated mainly to the Migration Board and to cover accommodation and subsistence costs.
On 1st June 2002, the Agreement on freedom of movement between Switzerland and the European Union came into force. It represents the most comprehensive agreement ever concluded on aliens. It provides regulations on the right of entry and residence for EU nationals and the members of their families and service providers
The new Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Bill is still under discussion in Parliament.
The proposal to have the children of asylum seekers educated inside reception centres, instead of in local schools has been one of the most criticised measures.
Following the proposal of a new network of accommodation centres, the Home Office announced plans to build three new reception centres for asylum seekers. They are expected to spend about six months while they wait for a decision on their application. All the new centres are to be in rural and rather isolated areas and have for this reason been further criticised. Although asylum seekers will be free to leave the centres during the day, failure to return at night will result in the rejection of the application on ‘non-compliance ground’.
Several other centres will be set up for different purposes including induction centres for the first 10 days while the claim for protection is examined, accommodation centres for those awaiting a decision, integration centres for successful applicants and removal centres for rejected asylum seekers.
Another proposal, which gave rise to concern especially among refugee organisations, provides for the immediate deportation of those whose application has been rejected. At present, they are allowed to stay in the country while waiting for the appeal decision. If the proposal is approved, rejected asylum seekers will be sent back to their country of origin and if they choose to appeal, they will have to do it from there. A flexible list of so-called ‘safe’ third countries will be used to decide whether a rejected asylum seeker can safely return to his home country. There is also a possibility, the feasibility of which seems however highly unlikely, that rejected asylum seekers could be returned to a country through which the UK believes they passed.
British PM Tony Blair announced an action plan on “how to deliver a radical reduction in the number of unfounded asylum applications” drawn up by the Home Office. The plan considers the possibility of deploying warships of the Royal Navy in the eastern Mediterranean to intercept vessels carrying would-be asylum seekers and of carrying out deportations using RAF transport planes.
UNHCR has published its “2001 Global Report”. It is intended to target external parties besides donors, such as academics, non-governmental organisations, universities, libraries, private interest groups. The report describes UNHCR’s operations in 17 regions starting with an overview of the major population displacements and UNHCR’s achievements and impact on refugees during 2001. It also highlights the contribution of the refugee-hosting countries to the different programmes. All information presented in the report is as of 31 December 2001, unless otherwise stated. The full report is available on the UNCHR website: www.unchr.ch.
UNHCR has published “The 2002 Global Appeal – Strategies and Programmes”. The aim is to alert the international community to UNHCR’s priorities and plans for 2002. After an introductory overview of the UNHCR, operations are presented in seventeen regions which include regional overviews and country chapters. The full document is available on the UNHCR website at http://www.unhcr.ch/pubs/fdrs/ga2002/ga2002toc.htm.
The European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in collaboration with the Centre for Islamic and Christian-Muslim Relations Department of
Theology has produced a “Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after
11 September 2001”. The report presents a comparative analysis of acts of
aggression and changes in attitudes towards Muslims and other minority groups
across the European Union after the events of 11 September. The report is based
on 15 country data provided by the EUMC's RAXEN network of the National Focal
Points in the EU Member States. The report is available at http://eumc.eu.intlpublications/terror-report/Synthesis-report_en.pdf.
Human Rights Watch has published a sixty-two-page report titled “Nowhere to Turn: State Abuses of Unaccompanied Migrant Children by Spain and Morocco”. The report is based on several interviews with current and former migrant children carried out during five-weeks of investigation in the two countries. Conditions of residential centres where children are kept are also examined, revealing sub-standard facilities, serious overcrowding and no recreational space for children. It also reports that staff of the centres frequently beat and threatened them. For the full text of the report, please visit www.hrw.org/reports/2002/spain-morocco/.
The Human Rights Dimension of EU Immigration Policy: Lessons from Member States, Human Rights Watch Statement on the Occasion of the Academy of European Law Conference: ‘State of Play on European Immigration and Asylum Policy: Patching Up Tampere’, is now available on Human Rights Watch website at
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/eu-immigration.pdf
Justice has published its report titled ‘Asylum: Changing Policy and Practice in the UK, EU and Selected Countries’. The aim of the report is to give a comprehensive understanding of the current issues in the asylum debate and to provide the required information about developing trends. While the first chapter is devoted to the UK, explaining the legislative changes over the past decade and how the system currently works, the second and third chapters focus on the EU and on the documents presently under discussion. The fourth chapter looks at five countries and their policy: Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Canada and Australia. The report finally assesses global developments and consultations by the UNHCR and gives a brief account of the interpretation of the Convention and other international law protection. To order a copy of the report, please contact: admin@justice.org.uk
The Royal Institute of International Affairs - European Programme has produced a briefing paper on 'EU Immigration and Asylum Policy: From Tampere to Laeken and Beyond'. It summarises the steps through which the co-operation in this area emerged, what is the current state of play and what to expect in the future. For a full text of the paper, please visit http://www.riia.org/pdf/briefing_papers/BP%2030.pdf
The British Refugee Council has published a report on 'Refugees and Progression Routes to Employment'. It provides model routes into employment for different refugee occupational groups and its recommendations are based on a survey of refugees seeking employment in the UK as well as with providers of training and advice to refugees and asylum seekers. The report is available on the Refugee Council web site at
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/rc_reports/progression_routes.pdf.
‘Credit to the Nation’ is the second edition of a report of the same name published by the British Refugee Council in 1997 tracing the history of refugee settlement in the UK and looking at the benefits that refugee groups and individuals have brought and continue to bring to the UK. The report looks in detail at the contributions made by some of Britain most significant refugee communities – starting with the Russian Jewish refugees and concluding with the Kosovars, who fled the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. To order a copy of the report, please contact books@refugeecouncil.org.uk.
‘A Case for Change: How Young Refugee children in England are missing out’ is the result of joint work between the Children’s Society, the British Refugee Council and Save the Children. The aim of the Monitoring Project of the Refugee Children’s Consortium was to find out where children and young people live, in what type of accommodation, and to record the difficulties they encounter in accessing services such as education and social services. A copy of the report is available on the Refugee Council website at www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/rc_reports/case_for_change.pdf.
'The Changing Face of Europe - Population Flows in the 20th Century' (2002). The book was produced as part of the Council of Europe's Education Project "Learning and teaching about the history of Europe in the 20th century". This study examines all aspects of migration, its different flows and types, such as economic, forced and ethnic, as well as its impact on economics, demography and social and cultural life. National policies on integration and naturalisation and how they are conditioned are also examined and compared. For a copy of the book, please contact publishing@coe.int To place an order directly, please visit the Council of Europe website at http://book.coe.int/gb/cat/liv/htm/11872.htm.
The Acts of the European Conference on Migration held in October 2001 under the Belgian Presidency have been published. It contains a compilation of the different speeches given during the Conference on the following themes: immigration policy, common policy on economic migration, partnership with the States of origin and integration. An electronic copy of the publication is available on the Belgian Ministry of the Interior website: http://www.mibz.fgov.be. To order a print copy please contact: alain.schmits@dofi.fgov.be
Forced Migration Review have released a special issue on 'September 11th: has anything I changed?' It has been produced in collaboration with the Migration Policy Institute in Washington and discusses the consequences for forced migration of the events of September 11th and the war in Afghanistan. The whole issue is now available online at
http://www.fmreview.org/magsO_PDFS/fmr13.pdf
U.S. Committee for Refugees
(USCR) has published The World Refugee Survey – 2002, a comprehensive report on refugees, internally displaced persons,
and asylum seekers worldwide.
The World Refugee Survey 2002 is aimed to provide relevant information to
policy makers, government leaders, journalists, educators, relief workers, and
humanitarians alike. The report is the culmination of a year's documentation
and research on the on-uprooted populations in more than 120 countries. In
addition to USCR's country-by-country analysis, the Survey includes
comprehensive statistics, as well as articles examining the impact of September
11 on refugees and asylum seekers. For further information, please visit the
USCR website at www.refugees.org/WRS2002.cfm.
Refugee and Asylum Seekers
Policy in Australia, is a policy paper produced
by the Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community. Research and analysis were
undertaken for the Independent Education Union of Australia. The policy paper
gives an overview of and considers possible alternatives to the current policy regarding
refugees and asylum seekers in Australia. Particular attention is given to the
following issues: the visa system, detention, and asylum procedure and appeal.
The document is available on the Independent
Education Union of Australia website: http://www.ieu.org.au/
The International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) have launched its new website at www.escr-net.org. It is designed to serve as an information- sharing source for groups and individuals around the world active in advocating for and promoting economic, social and cultural rights. On the site, you will find four interactive, searchable databases of organisations and individuals, projects and activities, case law, and events relevant to economic social and cultural rights. For general inquiries regarding the International Network for ESCR, please contact the Secretariat at escr-net@escr-net.org
LEGISLATIONLINE's Electronic Newsletter is the new service via e-mail of the internet- based legislative database run by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and providing access to domestic and international legislation in the OSCE regions on issues relating to the protection of human rights and the furtherance of the rule of law. It provides brief information about the latest legal developments in the OSCE region and an account of the latest additions. The newsletter will be circulated on a monthly basis. For further information please visit the website www.legislationonline.org
The Metropolis Project is organising a conference on the theme 'Togetherness in Difference: Citizenship and Belonging'. The conference, which will take place on 9-13 September 2002 in Oslo - Norway, will aim to further intensify exchange between policymakers, leading academics, non-governmental actors, and representatives of immigrant groups. The conference will focus on the following themes: Globalisation and the Politics of Migration, Empowerment and the effectiveness of Citizenship, Urban textures- How our cities are impacted by migration, Gender in Migration. For further information about this conference contact the Metropolis 2002 secretariat at oslo2002@metropolis.net or visit the web site: http://www.international.metropolis.net/
The Human Rights Law Centre of the University of Nottingham (UK) will hold a conference on 12-13 September 2002 on 'The UN and the Protection of Human Rights in Post-Conflict Situations'. The conference is part of a two-year project co-funded by the Human Rights Law Centre and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UN's involvement in post-conflict situations will be considered from the perspective of legal principles, peace agreements, types and levels of involvement, past accountability and future protection. For further information please contact Dirk Klaasen, School of Law, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK; LLZDKl@gwmail.nottingham.ac.uk
The Council of Europe is organising the 7th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Migration Affairs on the theme 'Migrants in Our Societies: Policy Choices for the 21st Century' It will take place on 16-17 September 2002 in Helsinki, Finland. The themes under discussion include: developing channels of regular migration (labour migration, family reunification, etc.), reconciling migration control and asylum (border control, reception conditions, temporary protection, etc.), return and repatriation (voluntary and forced return). For further information please visit the website http://www.congrex.fi/migration/.
The Institute for Legal Policy, University of Trier, Germany, is organising a workshop on 'Towards a Common European Immigration Policy'. It will take place on October 24-25 2002. The purpose is an interdisciplinary dialogue between Law, Humanities and Social Science focussing on immigration in and to Europe and the integration of immigrants. The main themes of discussion will be: Commission Paper: 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community immigration policy' COM(2000) 757, Immigration from Eastern Europe, Immigration of skilled workers, Integration of Immigrants. Papers should be submitted not later than October 5, 2002. For further information please contact Cordelia Faulenbach, faulenbach@im.uni-trier.de
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), in cooperation with the European Commission, the European Parliament and EU Member States and Candidate Countries will jointly organise the European Conference on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings: Global Challenge for the 21st Century. The conference will take place in Brussels at the European Parliament’s Hemicycle on September 18-20, 2002. The main themes under discussion will be: prevention of trafficking, victim protection and assistance, police and judicial cooperation. For further information, please visit the website www.belgium.iom.int/STOPConference/en/
The University of Washington – Women’s Centre is organising a conference on the theme Globalisation, Justice and the Trafficking of Women and Children. It will take place at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA, on the 25-26 October 2002. The conference is open to NGOs, researchers, activists, academics, government officials and law enforcement agents. Experts will share their knowledge in a number of workshops on several themes, such as forced migration, international human rights and public health and human services. For further information, please contact Gabriela Villareal: mglv@u.washington.edu
1st International Congress on Child Migration – Return, Reunite & Reconcile, 27-31 October 2002, New Orleans – USA. The event is organised by the Child Migrants Trust, the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families (IAFC&F) and the Nottinghamshire County Council. It will bring together those involved in social, legal, medical and humanitarian services, such as academics, human rights experts, media, policy makers, NGOs, as well as former child migrants and victims of abuse and torture. Workshops, round-table discussions and exhibitions will be organised. For further information, please contact the Congress Organiser, Sue Jaques at the Congress Secretariat, Nottinghamshire, UK: sue@sjaques.fsworld.co.uk
Visit by the CPT to Switzerland,
published March 2002
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Switzerland between the 5 and the 15 February 2001. On 25 March 2002, it published the final report also including the reply by the Swiss government (http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/states/che.htm). The CPT recommends inter alia to take necessary measures to grant access to legal advisers for asylum seekers at the airport area in Zurich. Asylum seekers and persons judged to be inadmissible should be medically screened upon arrival at the airport and shall receive regular visits by medical persons. Of main concern to the Committee is the deportation of rejected asylum seekers. CPT recommends detailed improvements and principles to be respected with forced expulsions. Forced expulsions on “level 3 and 4” shall be stopped until the inter-cantonal working group presented findings/standards concerning the expulsion of aliens via air. In the meantime, the inter-cantonal working group has published the final report and given recommendations (http://www.kkjpd.ch/kkjpd/internet/?LOAD=frame&LANG=F).
Visit by
the CPT to Turkey, published on 24 April 2002
The visit to
Turkey was carried out from 2 to 14 September 2001. The report includes a
section on the conditions of foreign nationals held under immigration
legislation. Three issues were examined: removal procedures, conditions in
holding facilities for immigration detainees and registers.
Concerning
removal procedures, the CPT had established that about 200 persons from Africa
were forcibly removed from Turkey to Greece via rural areas in mid-July 2001
and it was alleged that some of them died in the process. The CPT calls upon
the Turkish authorities to give clear instructions to all agencies concerned
that foreign nationals are to be removed to neighbouring countries only through
official border crossings and only upon completion of all relevant procedures.
The CPT also urges the Turkish authorities to provide for some information on
the conclusion and implementation of readmission agreements with neighbouring
countries (e.g. the measures taken to ensure that no foreign national is
removed from Turkey on the basis of a readmission agreement to a country where
s/he would run a real risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment). The
CPT also recommends that the current legislation and practice be reviewed in
order to ensure that both national and international obligations Turkey is
bound to are met in all cases. The CPT also recommends that the Turkish
authorities make the necessary arrangements to ensure that persons refused
entry to Turkey and held in the transit zone of international airports, are
informed immediately of the procedure to be applied to them, are placed in a
position to contact a lawyer and when necessary are offered the services of an
interpreter. Concerning the conditions in holding facilities for immigration
detainees, the CPT would like to receive information as to how work to improve
the holding facilities has been implemented by the Turkish authorities.
Finally, regarding registers, the CPT recommends that all immigration detainees
are held in police establishments (including at international airports) and are
recorded in a register with their time of entry and time of departure.
Summary of UNHCR's current position on repatriation of refugees to Sri Lanka
The UNHCR declared on 16
April 2002 that conditions were still not right for large-scale repatriation of
Sri Lankan refugees from abroad. UNHCR said that the ceasefire agreement
between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) improved
prospects of a negotiated settlement, but acknowledged that the situation
remained too fragile for the refugee agency to actively promote repatriation on
a large scale. (www.unhcr.ch).
In letters to UK solicitors,
UNHCR stated:
"Although steps
towards peace have been taken in Sri Lanka recently, it is still premature to
advocate that the situation has reached a satisfactory level of safety to
warrant the return of all unsuccessful asylum applicants to Sri Lanka. In this
regard, UNHCR has been aware that returning Tamils are potentially open to risk
of serious harm similar to those generally encountered by young male Tamils in
certain circumstances. This risk may be triggered by suspicion (on the part of
the security forces) founded on various factual elements relating to the
individual concerned, including the lack of identity documents, the lack of
proper authorisation for residence and travel, the fact that the individual
concerned is a young Tamil male from an 'uncleared' area or the fact that the
person has close family members who are or have been involved with the LTTE.
"In UNHCR's view,
the presence of torture-related scars on the body of a returnee should be a
relevant consideration in assessing likelihood of danger upon the return of Sri
Lankan Tamil asylum seekers. Where such scars are related to human rights
abuses, they would likely be seen as evidence of the security forces' previous
interest in the particular individual. This could in turn serve to trigger
further adverse attention to that individual. While every case should be
addressed on its own merits, UNHCR would reiterate the view that special care
must be taken in relation to the return of failed asylum seekers to Sri
Lanka."
Refugee
community organisations in the UK have expressed concern that Western nations
may attempt to carry out large-scale repatriation of rejected asylum seekers
while the situation is uncertain and without ensuring mechanisms to guarantee
the safety and dignity of the refugees.
There are
currently nearly 800,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) in Sri Lanka. A
large part of the infrastructure in northeast Sri Lanka, such as roads,
electricity installations, communication facilities, houses and other
buildings, agricultural and industrial facilities, has been destroyed. In this
light, the Sri Lankan government would find it extremely difficult to resettle
even the IDPs. A large-scale influx of refugees from abroad without proper
plans for their safety, welfare and resettlement may have the effect of
destabilising local communities and eventually the peace process.
Australia: recent legislative changes affecting the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)
Amendments made to the Migration
Act 1958 (the Act) by the Migration Legislation
Amendment (Transitional Movement) Act
2002 will affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The amendments came into
effect on 12 April 2002 and have given the Tribunal an additional function,
that is, the amendments allow certain transitory persons to request an
assessment by the Tribunal of whether or not they meet the definition of a
refugee under Article 1A of the Refugee Convention.
The amendments to the
Act create a category of persons known as ‘transitory persons’
(s.5). A transitory person is essentially a person who has arrived unlawfully
by sea and been taken to a declared country (eg Nauru, Papua New Guinea) and
who:
· has
not already been assessed as being a refugee; and
· gives evidence in
proceedings against people smugglers, or the person is in transit through
Australia on return to their country of origin or a third country.
Where a transitory
person has been in Australia for a continuous period of 6 months or more, he or
she may make a request directly to the Tribunal for an assessment of whether or
not s/he is covered by the definition of a refugee in Article 1A of the Refugee
Convention (“s.198C assessment”).
The section 198C
assessment largely incorporates the existing procedures that apply to the
review of protection visa decisions including powers and obligations relating
to the provision of information (including adverse information), the giving of
an invitation to hearing and conducting a hearing and the giving and receiving
of documents. The nature of the inquiry under a section 198C assessment is
limited to an assessment of whether the person comes within the terms of the
definition in Article 1A of the Refugee Convention as amended by the Protocol
which provides that a “refugee” is someone who:
· is outside
his or her country of nationality;
· has
a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
· is
unable or unwilling (because of this fear) to avail him or herself of the protection
of that country.
The section 198C assessment does not involve
consideration of Articles 1C, D, E, F or Article 33 of the Refugees Convention.
If the Tribunal decides that the transitory person meets the Convention
definition in Article 1A, the person will be permitted to apply for a
substantive visa of a type to be determined by the Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
The Secretary of the Department of Immigration
and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs can issue a “certificate of
non-cooperation” in certain circumstances (s.198D). The Tribunal is not
permitted to commence or continue a section 198C assessment when such a
certificate is in effect.
The Act provides that
the Tribunal’s decision on the section 198C assessment is final and
cannot be challenged in any court; however, this does not affect the
jurisdiction of the High Court under s.75 of the Constitution.
A full text copy of the
amending legislation can be found by searching for Migration Legislation
Amendment (Transitional Movement) Act
2002, No.10 2002 at http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/.
First case of asylum being granted to a woman who feared genital excision
The Austrian equivalent to a court competent to examine appeals lodged by asylum seekers, an independent Federal Asylum Senate, has, for the first time, granted asylum to a woman who fled her country to avoid genital excision, also known as female genital mutilation (FGM). In its decision handed down on 21st March 2002, the “Asylum Senate” concluded that the woman, from Cameroon, had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group, namely women in her country who risk being circumcised.
The facts in that case were as follows: the woman’s mother married her uncle after the death of her father. This uncle arranged for her marriage with an old Muslim. The applicant was told that she had to undergo FGM before the wedding so that her groom would not realise that she was not a virgin anymore. Since the applicant’s sister had died after having been subjected to FGM, her mother advised her to flee the country.
On Friday 31 May, the Danish Parliament approved the new Immigration Bill, which will come into force on July 1st. 59 voted in favour, 48 against and 70 did not take part in the vote. Under the new law:
· only refugees entitled to protection under the 1951 Convention can apply for residence permits, abolishing the category of “de facto” refugees;
· refugees are granted only a permanent residence after seven years, instead of the previous three;
· applicants for a permanent residence are also now required to pass a Danish language test and have knowledge of Danish history and culture;
· refugees may have to return to their country if the situation improves even if they are waiting for a permanent permit;
· those awaiting for residence permit will see their position re-examined if they return to their country of origin for a holiday;
· a limited access to full unemployment benefit to any person who has not been resident in Denmark for seven years, including Danish citizens, immigrants and refugees;
· applications for asylum in a consulate or embassy are not allowed anymore and, therefore, only those already in Denmark can apply for asylum;
· to discourage arranged marriages, the minimum age at which anyone can marry a foreigner is now 24 years instead of 18.
Changes to the Danish Aliens Law adopted: on 31 May 2002, the Danish Parliament adopted Law No. 152, introducing a large number of changes to the existing Aliens Law. Due to its clear majority in Parliament, the governmental coalition, which includes the far right Danish People’s Party, was able to pass the law without major modifications compared to the initial proposal submitted in March 2002. The new provisions will enter into force on 1 July 2002.
The amendments aim principally at reducing the number of persons granted refugee status and family reunion in Denmark through further substantial and procedural restrictions.
Afghanistan: on 12 January 2002, the Danish Immigration Service put on hold the processing of all asylum claims submitted by Afghan applicants with reference to the fall of the Taliban regime. In May 2002, the Immigration Service, together with the Danish Refugee Council, conducted a fact-finding mission to Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to collect updated background information in view of further processing of Afghan asylum applications. The joint mission visited Islamabad and Peshawar in Pakistan and Kabul in Afghanistan. The report will be published in June.
Kosovo: in the light of the developments in Kosovo, the Immigration Service has started applying the cessation clause to Kosovo Albanians who had previously been granted convention status, but not a permanent residence permit. The Appeals Board has already heard a number of cases, and in the majority of cases, it has upheld the Immigration Service’s decision. UNHCR has published a statement on this issue, stating among other things that the cessation clause should not be applied in a general manner, but on an individual basis.
Since 1994, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board's practice regarding Iraqi asylum seekers from Government-controlled areas was to grant them refugee status on a prima facie basis as republikflucht refugees, provided they could not be referred to an internal flight alternative in the Kurdish controlled areas. In March 2002, however, this practice was modified. The change was based on the information that asylum seekers from Government-controlled areas could be returned to Iraq without risking persecution provided that their case does not involve other elements than having applied for asylum abroad and that they return voluntarily. Under the Appeals Board's new practice, the granting or refusal of protection to all Iraqi applicants, regardless of whether they come from Government- or Kurdish controlled areas, now depends on the individual circumstances of the claim.
In a decision of 2 May 2002, an Administrative Court (VG) ruled that even recognised refugees could be expelled from Germany if they have been convicted and sentenced to at least three year’s imprisonment. This case concerned a national of Sri-Lanka who was found guilty of smuggling his own compatriots over a long period of time. The authorities in charge of foreigners subsequently refused to renew his residence permit and recommended his expulsion. He was then informed that he would be deported from Germany. The VG pointed out that there was nothing in the Aliens Act which imposed a general ban on the expulsion of persons recognised as being politically persecuted. They may not however, be expelled to the country where they fear persecution, torture or danger to their life.
Obligation on women to wear a veil is not a ground for asylum: in a decision made public on 28 May 2002, the High Administrative Court (OVG) of Rheinland-Pfalz in Koblenz ruled that a woman has no claim to asylum in Germany merely on the ground that she is forced to wear a veil in her country. A foreign legal system does not have to be compared with the ideological neutrality and tolerance of the German Constitution. The German right of asylum does not include the task of endorsing the fundamental rights of other countries in accordance with German standards. The case concerned an Afghan woman who claimed that she was victim of gender-specific persecution because she refused to wear a veil in her home country, believing that such an obligation amounted to a limitation of her personal freedom. The OVG agreed that the obligation to wear a veil was indeed not compatible with the German Constitution, but it did not consider that it amounted to a violation of human rights relevant to Germany’s law on asylum. In the Court’s view, it is reasonable that a Muslim woman be required to observe Muslim requirements concerning clothing which have always been part of the Islamic system of rules.
On Thursday, June 20, the German Federal President Johannes Rau has after some months decided to sign the Immigration Bill voted on March 1 during a very much contested voting process. Rau heavily criticised the behaviour of Germany’s political parties following the vote in the Bundesrat where the procedure was characterised by some irregularities. He said he approved the law because he did not see any clear case of violation of the Constitution. However, he added that an examination by the Constitutional Court of the events surrounding the voting procedure would be highly desirable. Immediately after President Rau’s announcement, the opposition CDU (Christian Democrats) sought an injunction against the Bill at the Federal Constitutional Court in Karsruhe.
Asylum seekers are not entitled to remain in Ireland merely because of having a child born there. On the 8 of April 2002, the High Court ruled against a Czech couple and a Nigerian man who are claiming the right to remain in Ireland on the account of the fact that they have a child born in Ireland who is thus an Irish citizen. However, this judgement is still not final as the Czech couple and the Nigerian man will take their case to the Supreme Court.
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court made a ruling 12 years ago (Fajujonu case) which was interpreted as granting Irish born children the right to the company of their foreign parents even if they had no authorisation to remain in the country at the time of their child’s birth. The Supreme Court then ruled that the right of an Irish-born child to the company of its foreign parents might be contravened only for grave and substantial reasons associated with the common good. This case was however quite different from those of several thousand rejected asylum seekers who applied for a residence permit after the birth of their child in Ireland, as in the latter the family had been in Ireland already for eight years when the Supreme Court handed down its judgement. In the case of the Czech family, they arrived in Ireland in March 2001 after being refused asylum in the UK. On the basis of the Dublin Convention, their asylum claims were rejected and a deportation order was issued to them in September 2001. In November 2001, their fourth child was born. The Nigerian man, his wife and daughter arrived in May 2001, also after having been refused asylum in the UK. A deportation order was issued to him in September 2001 and on the 4 of October his son was born. A decision is still pending regarding the asylum applications by his wife and daughter.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court pointed out that while the rights of an Irish born child were not dependant on how long their foreign parents were in Ireland, this was a factor that could and perhaps should be considered by the courts in deciding whether the deportation orders should be carried out. The age of the child and his/her adaptability to a new environment are also relevant considerations according to the Court.
Undocumented
asylum seekers and the burden of proof
In the case of an asylum seeker from Iraq, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (AJD) judged that the Secretary of State could decide that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated that she had a well founded fear of persecution. The asylum seeker did not have any travel or identity documents or other proof to support her application. In the view of the AJD, the asylum seeker's claim that her 'travel agent' had made certain demands as to her documents did not take away from her the responsibility to produce evidence - wherever possible - to support her statements on her itinerary and her asylum story. As the asylum seeker had not been able to make 'verifiable' statements on her 5 week journey from Jordan to Holland, the Secretary of state could decide that the asylum seeker 'had thus infringed on the principle that the applicant's story, in so far as it is consistent and does not lack credibility, will be held for true as far as no corroborating evidence can reasonably be required'.
In another case the AJD judged that the Secretary of State could decide that the individual story of the applicant lacked credibility because of the vagueness and inconsistencies of the story as well as the lack of travel and identity documents. Under these circumstances the Secretary of State did, according to the AJD, not need to take into account the fact that the asylum seeker's story fitted in what is generally known of the (human rights) situation in Ivory Coast.
This AJD's jurisprudence on the consequences of the absence of travel and identity documents in the Netherlands shows that the burden of proof has shifted significantly to the asylum seeker.
Judgement of December 3, 2001, nr. 200105129/1
Dublin case: government concludes that Iraqi could be sent back
to Germany but nevertheless granted a humanitarian permit because of
applicant’s personal situation.
On 11 April, the Swedish government handed down a decision in an Iraqi case which raised the issue of whether Germany was a safe country to return an Iraqi asylum applicant to whose case was already dealt with by a German Court decision of 20 April 1998, stating he could be sent back to Jordan, the “safe country” where he had resided earlier. Swedish policy regarding Iraqis and Jordan was changed after it was advised by the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) not to return an Iraqi asylum seeker to Jordan, his wife’s home country. In that case, the Swedish authorities contacted the German authorities to obtain opinions on the consequences of returning the applicant to Germany. The Swedish embassy in Germany reported that Germany had apparently not changed its policy regarding expulsions of Iraqis to Jordan who had resided there despite the aforementioned CAT ruling, nor had they refrained from using Jordan as a transit country for expulsion to Iraq. However, the Swedish government is convinced that the applicant would be protected from refoulement if sent to Germany and that therefore the basic principles of the Dublin Convention could be enforced. The Swedish government failed to note that the German government does not recognise the individual right to complain to the CAT and would thus seem to suggest that it has more faith in the German system than in the Swedish one, which has been criticised on at least eight occasions by the CAT for not fully respecting its obligation to protect persons from the risk of torture. In the end, the Swedish government avoided having this issue discussed further by granting the applicant a permanent residence permit on humanitarian grounds based on the overall assessment of the individual’s situation.
The Federal court decided (Decision of the 9 April 2002, 2A.151/2001) that the denial to leave a registration centre, where asylum seekers have to lodge their claim, is a restriction of freedom eligible for appeal. The asylum seekers must have the right to ask for a decision in writing and to have a right to appeal.
The Federal Office for Refugees launched a return program for minorities from Kosovo. Unlike UNHCR the Swiss authorities judge the return as acceptable. Those willing to return permanently and voluntarily, can apply for return assistance. In a first phase (registration until 31 August 2002 and return not later than 31 December 2002), each adult will receive CHF 2000, each child CHF 1000. In a second phase (registration until 31 march 2002 and leaving before 30 April 2002), reduced payments will be made: CHF 1500.-/adult, CHF 750.-/child. Accordingly, all persons originating from Kosovo who are belonging to a group of minorities should receive a deadline to leave Switzerland by 31 March 2003. Otherwise, they will be excluded from the second step of the return program.
On 24 November 2002, the Swiss citizens will vote on an initiative by the conservative right wing Swiss Peoples Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP). SVP promotes a very strict third country rule and carrier sanctions, as well as the cutting-down of medical services and social aid for asylum seekers. The suggested third country rule proposes that an asylum claim will not be processed by the Swiss authorities if the asylum seeker’s flight route crossed a “safe country” before arriving in Switzerland. All neighbouring countries of Switzerland are considered to be safe, therefore, this strict third country rule would totally undermine the system, as about 98 % of all asylum seekers arrive at the Swiss borders passing through neighbouring third countries. The remaining 2 % would have difficulties to reach Switzerland via air as the carrier sanctions proposed are much stricter than known in any other European country.
The new Aliens Act has been sent out to Parliament. It foresees various restrictions for asylum seekers such as carrier sanctions, detention after a decision on inadmissibility, punishment for traffickers.
Rejected
asylum seeker suffering from AIDS is allowed to stay
On 23 May 2002, the Supreme Administrative Court (TF)
upheld an appeal lodged by a rejected Rwandan asylum seeker suffering from
AIDS. The
TF acknowledged that the return to her home country would lead to serious
consequences for her health and it could even be fatal for her, given that the
treatment received in Geneva would have to end. The woman arrived in
Switzerland in 1997 with her three children and applied for political asylum,
which was refused. Three years later she was hospitalised and it was then
discovered that she was suffering from the AIDS virus. She then attempted, in
vain, to obtain a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.
Special regulations and training on carrying out
expulsions by force: on 11 April, the
Conference of Ministers of justice and police of the cantons unanimously
adopted a regulation of 40 articles outlining the methods which may or may not
be used when carrying out expulsions by force. In future a canton may request
the assistance of the police from another canton. There are however, several
legal obstacles which need to be overcome.
There is a federal law governing
expulsions by force, but necessary complementing rules are either lacking or
differ significantly from one canton to another. As a result, the laws of a
canton are applicable only within its territory and only by its own police, but
not by those of another canton. The regulation provides for special training of
policemen carrying out expulsions by force. Included in the regulation is the
clear prohibition to cover the head of a rejected asylum seeker with a helmet,
even for a short period, if there is a risk that s/he may have respiratory
problems and to use a gag to prevent the person from screaming.
SSHD
v Julia Wanguru Muchomba,
Appeal No CC 25710-2001, [2002] UKIAT 1348, 2 May 2002: UK
Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAP) overturns an Adjudicator’s decision
which was in favour of a female genital mutilation (FGM) case.
The basis of the
claimant’s appeal, a woman from Kenya, was fear of having to undergo FGM
by force. She did not want to undergo FGM on health grounds but also as a
practising Christian. As a result, she was ostracised by her family. She was
treated as an outcast and not permitted to eat with them and was excluded from
any social conversation. In the first instance, an appeal had been allowed by
the Adjudicator against refusal of the Secretary of State to grant the Kenyan
woman asylum. The Adjudicator had found that the respondent was a member of a
particular group, namely young girls living in tribal communities in Kenya
where there is an ingrained practice of FGM. He also stated that she therefore
had a well-founded fear of being subjected to FGM or of being persecuted
because of her refusal to undergo FGM and he concluded that she was a refugee
within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Secretary of
State appealed against the decision on three grounds on which the IAT agreed.
The first one is that the reasons for finding that the respondent is part of a
social group do not amount to immutable characteristics which go to form a
social group because “not all the girls in such rural tribal communities
will be forced to undergo FGM as many of the girls undergo FGM voluntarily
without any means of force or coercion” (para19). The tribunal also found
that according to different reports the number of girls undergoing FGM is
falling in Kenya and the government has designed a national plan of action for
the elimination of FGM. Lastly, the Tribunal found that the authorities in
Kenya can offer the respondent protection by way of redress through the
national courts. As regard to the respondent’s alleged breach of Article
8 ECHR, the IAT stated that the respondent will have the opportunity to pursue
her family through the courts and by this means to preserve her liberty and
right to a private life without FGM.
Judicial Review cases involving third country cases: two Judicial Reviews have been applied for in cases where asylum seekers are arguing that their return to Austria on the one hand, and Italy on the other, would violate Art 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR. In both cases the claimants sought to raise the point that the financial assistance and support arrangements for asylum seekers are not adequate such that there is a risk that they might be forced into destitution and as a result they will not be able to properly pursue their claim to asylum in those countries. The human rights appeal was then certified by the SSHD as being manifestly unfounded. The challenge was to the manifestly unfounded certificate. A permission with expedition was granted in both cases.
[2002] UKIAT 857, Safete
Kurshumliu v SSHD, 25/3/2002, does a Kosovan rape victim face such severe
stigma as to amount to a breach of Article 3 and 8 ECHR. The Tribunal embarks
upon its own research in considering that question.
The appellant, a Kosovan woman had
given a harrowing account of being arrested by the Serbian army, detained and
repeatedly raped along with other Kosovan women. She therefore argued that her
return would breach Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and that Article 1C(5) applied
to her. The Adjudicator had first dismissed her appeal on the account of the
fact that she would not suffer stigma as a rape victim as this fact need not
become known. The Tribunal granted leave to remain in relation to the human
rights appeal only. In the view of the Tribunal, it was not for the Appellant
to show that all or most rape victims would be stigmatised, or that all of the
community would treat her thus. It was reasonably likely that the fact of the
rape would become known in the appellant community, given the circumstances in
which the rape occurred (there are had been others when the appellant had been
raped). In the light of the medical evidence before them, any such treatment
would have an adverse effect on the mental health of the appellant, such that
it would amount to inhumane and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3. The
Tribunal also found that her return would amount to a disproportionate
interference with her Article 8 right to respect for her private and family
life as there was a risk that her family unit would break up under the pressure
if ostracised by her community. Furthermore, it was clear that the very fact of
return would harm the appellant’s mental health.
[2002] EWHC 735, (Admin), 18
April 2002, Mani, R (on the application of) v. London Borough of Lambeth, High
Court rules asylum seekers with additional care needs can access support from
local authorities.
There has been a further High Court decision in relation to disabled asylum seekers accessing support from local authorities in three separate cases involving the London boroughs of Lambeth and Enfield.
The cases found that under Section 21 of the
National Assistance Act, local authorities do have a duty to provide residential
accommodation to destitute asylum seekers who have needs other than those
arising solely from destitution. The three asylum seekers in these cases had
different disabilities. One is in the advanced stages of HIV, one has limited
mobility and additional mental health problems and another has very limited
mobility.
Last year a judicial review and subsequent
appeal ruling, LB Westminster v the National Asylum Support Service, ruled that
where an asylum seeker's needs lie beyond destitution and are sufficient to
warrant an additional service from the local authority, the local authority has
a duty to support them. This latest ruling found that this did not need to be
reconfirmed. It is still possible that the Westminster case will be
heard in the House of Lords in June.
Last minute reprieve for Slovak
family
A family with a mixed composition (the mother is
a Slovak whereas the father is a member of the Roma minority) who applied for
asylum in the UK 15 months ago, alleging that they were victims of discrimination,
have had their deportation halted on the 6 of May, while they were
about to be removed on the very same day. This has been rendered possible by a
new element in the case which was not known until January this year when the
couple’s two year old daughter was diagnosed as suffering from brain
injury, caused by the fact she was born prematurely after her mother was
attacked by skinheads. It is however unlikely that the Home Office will grant
them asylum in the UK, in spite of the daughter’s condition. At the most
they can expect exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds.
No asylum for a Columbian whose fear of
persecution by guerrillas is deemed credible, but is motivated by financial
gain and not any of the reasons set out in the Geneva Convention.
On 13 May, the court of Appeal made
public its ruling to turn down the appeal lodged by a rejected asylum seeker
who fears persecution at the hand of a guerrilla group (the EPL), which had
threatened to murder him. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the
Immigration Appeal Tribunal, who had accepted that the asylum seeker’s
fear of persecution was well-founded but ruled out granting him asylum because
the EPL’s threats were motivated by financial gain and the grounds for
his persecution were therefore not included in the reasons set out by the 1951
Geneva Convention.
The asylum seeker in question is member of a rich family of landowners, but was not himself involved in politics. His elder brother was assassinated in 1992 for political reasons and so was his uncle, but for quite a different reason. His uncle had apparently received the same demand to pay a monthly ransom and was killed after he stopped making the payments. In upholding the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal agued that even if the asylum seeker could substantiate membership of a particular social group, he would still have to prove that the persecution that he faces in Columbia was linked to his membership of the social group. This was said not to be the case as the motive for the EPL for wanting to persecute him was only financial.
In January 2002, an immigration Court in Chicago (USA) (see Women’s Asylum News, Refugee Women Resource Project, Asylum Aid, Issue 21 May 2002), granted refugee status to a gay man from Malaysia who fled his country after years living in fear of persecution at the hands of his family, the police and anti-homosexual groups. In the case of Malaysia, it was argued that gay men with female sexual identities are a “social group”. Such men are known as “mak nyah” (transsexuals) and “pondan” (gender-crossers), a large number of whom are Muslim Malays who are condemned for violating the tenets of Islam. They are labelled as sexual deviants and generally shunned by society at a young age. As a result, they tend to frequent certain areas where they know there will be others like them. They also share specific social characteristics such as mannerisms and style of dress. In this context it was shown that the respondent was routinely ridiculed and abused from an early age, and throughout his teenage and adult life, by his parents, teachers, peers, religious leaders and ultimately by Malaysian authorities. He suffered continuing bullying at school and his parents repeatedly abused him physically, hitting him with household objects. On one occasion, his mother hit him with a broom with such a force that he had to go to the hospital with a severe head wound. He also faced severe persecution in the Malaysian society. He and his friends were physically and verbally assaulted wherever they went. One night he was forced to carry out oral sex and witness two of his friends being sodomized by police officers. Current evidence shows that the Malaysian Islamic Affairs Department operates as “the morality police”, with fifty enforcement officers across the country who are empowered to arrest Muslims suspected of breaking Islamic laws, including homosexuals, transvestites and transsexuals. According to a recent survey these laws are routinely enforced: gay men with female sexual identities are apprehended by the police and Islamic religious authorities at relatively high rates (See Yik Koon, “ Mak Nyahs in Malaysia, the Influence of Culture and Religion on Their Identity, Malysian Northern University, research paper presented at the Fourth international Congress on Cross Dressing, Sex and Gender issues, Philadelphia, October 5-8, 2000. The study reported that of the 507 “mak nyah” surveyed, 55% and 28% reported that they had been apprehended by the police and the Islamic religious authorities respectively. The most common offence charged was cross-dressing).
Gay men have also been blamed by the
authorities for the country’s social and economic struggles. As a
consequence, in that case the lawyers argued that the respondent had a
well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Malaysia particularly in the
context of and support for Islamic fundamentalism and as the very authorities
meant to protect him from homophobia are known perpetrators of such
mistreatment.
Euro-Mediterranean
Conference, Valencia. On 22 and 23 April 2002 in Valencia, Spain, Foreign Ministers of the
fifteen EU Member Sates and twelve partners in the South Mediterranean met for
the fifth Euro-Mediterranean Conference. Among the documents adopted by the
Ministers was the Framework Document on regional cooperation programme in the
field of Justice, in combating drugs, organised crime and terrorism as well as
cooperation in the treatment of issues relating to the social integration of
migrants, migration and movement of people. For the full Presidency
Conclusions, please see the following link: http://a140.g.akamai.net/7/140/6631/ad92f5c15389f8/multimedia.ue2002.es/infografiasActualidad/20020423/1513Ing.pdf
21-22 June, European Council Summit in Seville, Spain.
The fight against ‘illegal immigration’, enlargement, and the future of the European Union were the focus of the European Council in Seville. The Union's external relations and the continuity of the economic reform process, pushed forward in Barcelona, rounded off the agenda of a European Council set to mark the culmination of the Spanish Presidency of the European Union.
Asylum and Immigration: The European Council expressed its determination to speed up the implementation of all aspects of the programme adopted in Tampere for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU and stressed the need to develop an EU common policy on the issues of asylum and immigration. It welcomed the Commission communication entitled ‘Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union’. It also urged the Council to adopt the Dublin II Regulation (by the end of 2002), the minimum standards for qualification and status and provisions on family reunification and the status of long-term permanent residents (By June 2003) and the common standards for asylum procedures (by the end of 2003).
Enlargement: The Council reviewed the progress of the accession negotiations over the six months of the Spanish Presidency, with a view to reaching common EU positions in accordance with the “road map” proposed by the European Commission and approved by the Council. It reaffirmed that the EU is determined to conclude the negotiations with the candidate countries by the end of 2002. Particular attention was given to progress made by Bulgaria and Romania over the last few months. The question of Cyprus was also discussed.
The future of the EU: The Fifteen examined the report from the Presidency on the reform of the European Council and the Council, and heard an initial assessment by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing of the work of the Convention on the future of Europe.
Economic issues: The European Council discussed the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and looked at the mandates set at the Barcelona European Council.
External relations: The Fifteen also reviewed the European Union's external activities during the first half of 2002, as well as the international situation, and agreed on their positions for various international gatherings, in particular the Conference on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
For further information on the European Council Summit in Seville, please see the Spanish Presidency Website:
http://www.ue2002.es/principal.asp?idioma=ingles
On 1 July 2002, Denmark took over the Presidency of the European Union for the sixth time. For more information on the forthcoming Danish Presidency including a calendar of meetings in the Council of Ministers during the Danish Presidency, please see: http://www.eu2002.dk/main/
Justice and Home Affairs Councils
On 25 and 26 April
2002, the Justice and Home Affairs Council met in Luxembourg. During the Council negotiations, the EU approved
the negotiation of illegal immigrant readmission agreements with third
countries and a stepping-up of the ‘fight against illegal
immigration’ by sea.
General
political guidelines on common minimum standards for the reception of asylum
seekers were also adopted. On common minimum standards for the reception of
asylum seekers, the scope of the Directive will
be limited to “applicants for asylum,” i.e. an application for protection
under the 1951 Geneva Convention and will not apply to border cases. However,
this Directive will apply to Dublin cases.
Member States may confine an applicant, if need be, to a particular place in
accordance with their national law or can assign a restricted area of movement,
an area which cannot affect “private life and shall allow sufficient
scope for guaranteeing access to all benefits under the Directive.”
Education of minors may be provided in reception or other centres. Applicants
will not have access to the labour market for a period determined by the Member
State and “for reasons of labour market policies, Member States may give
priority to EU nationals and nationals of States bound by the Agreement on the
European Economic area and also to legally resident third-country
nationals”. Applicants may
still be accommodated at the border, and no time limit on the obligation to
stay in reception centres has been imposed.
Please see the following link for the agreed Council
text on minimum standards of reception of asylum seekers. ECRE will produce a detailed analysis of the text following the
adoption of the directive: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st08/08351en2.pdf
For the Council Press Release on the Reception Directive, please see: http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/NewMain.asp?LANG=1
For
the Press Release of the Spanish Presidency on minimum standards of reception
of asylum seekers, please see: http://www.ue2002.es/principal.asp?opcion=1&subopcion=1&idioma=ingles
Draft 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 (Dublin).
The Justice and Home
Affairs Council Asylum working group met again on May 8 to continue the
negotiations on the draft
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 (Dublin). Controversial points under discussion were the definition of the
family for the purposes of family reunification, the provisions on
unaccompanied minors, burden of proof to determine the allocation of
responsibility among member states and time limits.
Management Plan for the
EU’s external borders
On 13 June 2002, the Justice and Home Affairs Council met in Luxembourg and approved a Management Plan for the EU’s external borders, as well as the harmonisation of the offence of terrorism. The External Borders Management Plan comprises measures in five areas:
· A common operational consultation and cooperation mechanism. Proposal: creation of national contact points for border management; creation of a network of immigration liaison officers in international airports in the Member States, in third countries and in Member States’ central services; setting-up of rapid response units; establishment of a permanent system for exchanging data and information; creation of a joint expert body on external borders.
· Common integrated risk evaluation. Involves: implementing an International Plan for Airports; introducing a similar risk assessment system for maritime borders.
· Inter-operational equipment and staff. Proposal: Devise common training programmes for border guards; encourage convergence of national policies in respect of police service equipment; create a common network of external border monitoring by radar and satellite.
· A common corpus of legislation. Requirements: revise the Common Manual for External Borders to clarify the legal nature of its various provisions; introduce a practical memorandum for use by border guards.
·
Burden-sharing among EU Member States.
The Plan has been approved in record time, following the Commission’s communication on external border management, presented in May, and the presentation on 30 May in Rome of the Feasibility Study on a European Corps of Border Guards. For more information on the JHA Council Conclusions, please see the Spanish Presidency Website: http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Preparatory&in_force=NO&an_doc=2002&nu_doc=233&type_doc=COMfinal or http://www.ue2002.es/principal.asp?idioma=ingles
Framework Decision on combating
terrorism
The Council also adopted a Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism, the aim of which is to approximate the definition of terrorist offences in all Member States and provide sanctions for individuals who commit or are liable for such offences, and a Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. The two proposals will be published in the Official Journal shortly.
Dublin Regulation determining
the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum
The Dublin Regulation, determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum, was also discussed by the JHA Council. The Ministers emphasised the link between the issue and combating illegal immigration and underlined the importance of reaching an agreement on the subject in the near future. The conclusions state that the Council instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue its discussion on the basis of the Council’s discussion.
It was also decided that:
· The EU's action in this domain "shall respect "international human rights law and obligations, in particular the 51 Geneva Convention.
· The EU shall provide support to those countries of origin or transit willing to cooperate with the EU by ways of intercepting ships used for the smuggling of immigrants and the trafficking in human beings, and by readmitting immigrants arriving at EU territory from their countries.
· The EU should adopt measures vis-à-vis the countries of origin or transit in cases of large influxes of immigrants in an irregular situation and when these countries refuse to adopt the measures that the EU requires from them in order to prevent illegal immigration. One of the steps requested by the EU to countries of origin and transit is the ratification of relevant international law instruments, such as the UN Convention against organised criminality and the 51 Geneva Convention.
The Fight Against Terrorism
Decision Adopted by Written
Procedure. The acts adopted extend the list of persons, groups and entities
involved in terrorist acts whose assets are frozen and/or which are subject to
judicial and police co-operation among Member States. For the full list, see: http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/newmain.asp?lang=1
- in Miscellaneous.
The
European Union has agreed on the status of the thirteen Palestinian militants expelled to Cyprus at the request of Israel in order to allow the
siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem to be brought to an end. Each
will be granted a limited permit of stay on the territory of the host country
for a maximum period of one year. The conditions (housing, rights, etc.) will
be decided according to the legislation of each country, but with a mutual
information and coordination effort to reach the highest level of harmonisation
possible. In the event of a request of extradition (which, a priori, could only
come from Israel), the State to which the request is addressed should consult
its partners to reach a common approach. These provisions must be included on a
"common position" by the Fifteen.
EU to assess
sharing of financial burden for setting up European border guards based on an
Italian feasibility study. The debate launched by the European Commission Communication on the
integrated management of the Union's external borders was supplemented by a
feasibility study unveiled by Italy in Rome on 30 May at a ministerial
conference attended by Commissioner Antonio Vitorino. The conference considered
one of the aspects of the Communication - the setting up of a European border
guard corps (other issues covered by the Communication are visa policy,
co-ordination of police and customs officers and equipment, like the Galileo
system). The ministers in Rome also discussed the pilot group of EU
representatives that will monitor the training of border guards by a college of
police, technical assistance to third countries (current and future EU
candidate countries) through the Phare programme in particular and possible one
off interventions where necessary. The key element on the negotiating table in
Rome was the cost of the European border guard corps and whether member States
were prepared to support this financial burden.
In Rome, on 30 May 2002, António Vitorino, European Commission for Justice and Home Affairs, gave a speech at the Ministerial Conference on External Borders. In it, he argued that a more integrated management of the external borders of the Union is fundamental to the achievement of the Treaty objective of an area of freedom, security and justice, and that the Communication of the Commission aims to identify the main components of an integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the EU. These include at least five mutually interdependent components: a common corpus of legislation, a common co-ordination and operational co-operation mechanism, a common integrated risk analysis, staff trained for the European dimension, and availability of inter-operational equipment and burden sharing between Member States. For the full speech, please see: http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=SPEECH/02/243|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
On 30 April 2002, the European Commission held a meeting to define a framework for the relations between the European Union and Denmark in the implementation of common visa, asylum and immigration policy as well as other issues related to the free movement of persons. There was also an orientation debate on the eventual participation of Denmark in EU measures on which it does not have an opt-in. The political guidelines approved indicate the following areas where for reasons of good governance there would be a EU interest in the participation of Denmark: the Dublin and Eurodac acquis (on the mechanisms and criteria for determining the Member States responsible for considering an application for asylum). For the press release, please see: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/643|0|RAPID&lg=EN
Please see
the following link for the amended Proposal for a Council Directive on the
right to Family Reunification: http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2002/com2002_0225en01.pdf. The main
elements of the revised proposal include the use of a stand
still clause (on the substance) and as regards the time-frame and the
setting of a deadline for the next stage (two years after the transposition of the directive into
national legislation). The
standstill clause aims to ensure that Member States do
not use the new derogations if their legislation at the time of adoption of the
Directive did not already provide for them. The deadline clause aims
to ensure the adoption of genuine common rules in the near future.
On the scope of the directive, the directive does not apply to
members of the family of a citizen of the European Union or to persons residing
on the basis of temporary protection or a subsidiary form of protection. The
Directive provides for a review to take into account developments "notably
to govern the family reunification of persons enjoying other forms of
subsidiary protection and Union citizens". (Paragraph 2.3 Explanatory
Memorandum). The period of validity of the residence document issued to members
of the family reunified with a person entitled to stay permanently has been
revised. The residence permit for family members may be withdrawn, or
renewal may be refused, on grounds of public policy and domestic security. "Special attention should be paid
to the situation of refugees on account of the reasons which obliged them to
flee their country and prevent them from leading a normal family life there.
More favourable conditions should therefore be laid down..." Member States may confine this scheme to
refugees whose family relationships existed prior to recognition of refugee status. A
derogation concerning the material conditions for the exercise of the
right to family reunification has been inserted: refugees will not be subject
to the housing, health-care insurance and stable resources requirements.
This derogation applies solely for the reunification of the spouse and minor
children. Another optional condition – the possibility of imposing a
waiting period before being rejoined by family members – also does not
apply to refugees. ECRE will issue comments on the Draft Proposal in the
near future.
The
European Commission has launched a debate on the need for a common policy for
return of illegal residents. Acting on a proposal from the Justice and Home
Affairs Commissioner, António Vitorino, the European Commission approved
in April 2002, a Green Paper on a Community return policy on illegal
residents. The deadline for comments on the Green Paper is 31 July
2002 so that the Commission will be able to prepare for a hearing on a
Community return policy over the summer
The Green Paper proposes that the following issues be examined in depth:
· the development of a common return policy as part of a broader common asylum and immigration policy compatible with the need for protection under international and European law in the evolving common European asylum system;
· the implementation of point 40 of the Conclusions of the Laeken European Council, calling for the integration into EU foreign policy of policies for managing migratory flows;
· the definition of common standards for return procedures and the question of whether they should be legally binding;
· the improvement of cooperation between Member States' administrations and whether a future financial instrument could be conducive to that end;
·
the determination of elements of a
common readmission policy encompassing a balanced cooperation with the third
countries concerned. The Green Paper ties in with the guidelines laid down by
the Laeken European Council on 14 and 15 December 2001. On that occasion, the
Justice and Home Affairs Council was requested to draw up an action plan on the
basis of the Commission Communication of 15 November 2001 on a common policy on
illegal immigration. This plan was adopted on 28 February 2002 and includes a
section on the readmission and repatriation policy which the Commission hopes
to be able to develop quickly and effectively thanks to the discussion it is
launching with the publication of this Green Paper.
The text of the Green paper on Return is available in all EU languages on the European Commission Website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/immigration_en.htm
The European Commission has proposed integrated management of the European Union’s external borders to secure the area of freedom, security and justice - COM(2002) 233 final. These measures would be taken on a genuine Community basis rather than as a set of national systems and would also map out the route to the more longer-term objective of setting up a European Corps of Border Guards. The guidelines it has adopted favour operational solutions to make further improvements in checks at external borders, the aim being to make it clear that freedom of movement within the EU does not necessarily mean less security for the general public in the context of migratory phenomena. As regards asylum, there is a reference in the text for the need to respect the principles of asylum rights in the fight against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings (Paragraph 4). The list of suggested initiatives include introducing certain "good practices" in the Common Manual and thus give them mandatory status and the need for common training of border guards in the principles of respect for human rights and protection of asylum-seekers. For the press release, please see: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/661|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
The European Commission released a Communication on the Project for a European Union ((COM 2002) 247 final) on 22 May 2002. The Convention on the Future of Europe proposes a far-reaching over-haul of the European Union for a more effective EU that can respond better to citizens' demands and expectations. See paragraph 1.2 for a discussion of how Member States hope to build a European area of freedom, security and justice. In brief, the Communication supports common measures of control and surveillance of the EU’s external borders, common policies on asylum and immigration and effective action against organised crime and terrorism which would involve increased police and judicial cooperation. The language used by the Commission within the Communication is extremely negative towards asylum seekers. Please see attachment b010302 for the full text. For the Commission Press Release, please see: http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/750|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
29 May
2002, the European Commission says that immigration cannot correct the effects
of Europe's ageing population. The European
Commission has published a report which makes it clear that immigration alone
can never counterbalance the effects of an ageing population in Europe and
cannot solve the EU's labour market problems. The 'Social Situation Report
2002', published annually by the Commission,
presents an overview of social trends in Europe and interprets what they may
mean for policymaking. This year, the report focuses on mobility trends within,
into and out of the European Union and what this implies for total population
and for the old-age dependency ratio. For the Press release, please see: http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/774|0|RAPID&lg=EN;
The European Commission will hold a meeting with Member States on 18 June 2002 to discuss Member States responses to the Commission Working Document on the relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations and instruments. No decisions are expected to be reached at the meeting. The Commission expects to publish a report summarising all views on this matter (including NGOs') as well as the outcome of next week's meeting sometime in July. The report would serve to inform negotiations on the refugee directive and other relevant proposals, but no legislative initiative is expected to be undertaken.
Draft regulation
determining which Member State is responsible for assessing an asylum request
On 10 April 2002, the
European Parliament voted to adopt the report by Portuguese Socialist, Luis
Marinho on the draft regulation determining which Member State is responsible
for assessing an asylum request from a third-country national by 392 to 10 with
13 abstentions.
On 23 May 2002, the European Parliament, Brussels debated "The common asylum policy and internal security" (T07745) (COS022053 - COM(01)0710 - C5-01/07/02), Rapporteur: Robert J. Evans (PSE) and "Asylum: minimum standards for granting refugee status" (T07566) (CNS010207 - COM(01)0510 - C0573/01), Rapporteur: Jean Lambert (UK Greens).
On the common asylum policy and internal security, there was a consensus over the need of a common, asylum and immigration policy, which is speedier, efficient and based upon respect for human rights. On safeguarding internal security, most of those involved in the debate agreed that terrorists were in the main unlikely to use the asylum channel due to the scrutiny involved in the application process, however that we must take the terrorism threat most seriously.
On minimum standards for
granting refugee status, Rapporteur Jean Lambert (UK Greens) proposed the
following amendments: Scope: the directive should apply to all asylum
applicants, not just third country nationals and stateless persons.
Clarification: specific criteria need to be laid out to establish what exactly
international protection should involve. Entitlements: problems regarding the
difference in entitlements between refugees and those granted other forms of
international protection, for example, the rights of access to the labour
market. From the perspective of integration and contribution to host societies,
people should not be prevented from participating in the labour market if they
wish. The calendar for minimum standards for granting refugee status has been
set as follows: Deadline for amendments: 11 June 2002. Adoption: 9 July 2002.
Plenary: 2 September 2002 in Strasbourg. ECRE has issued comments on the EP
draft report. For ECRE’s comments, please see: http://www.ecre.org/eu_developments/qual.shtml
For the Jean Lambert report on the refugee
definition, please see attachment
b020302.
A French version of the ECRE document, “The Promise of Protection: Progress Towards a European Asylum Policy since the Tampere Summit” has been completed, and is available on the ECRE website at the following address: http://www.ecre.org/
ECRE’s research paper on “Setting Limits. Research Paper on the effects of limits on the Freedom of Movement of Asylum Seekers within the borders of the European Union Member States” is now available on the ECRE website: http://www.ecre.org/
ECRE has published guidelines for the treatment of Afghan asylum seekers in Europe on its website. The guidelines look at the duty of protection from persecution and the need for co-ordinated and staged returns. Please see the following link for the paper: http://www.ecre.org/positions/afghan.shtml
The ECRE advocacy network (ECRAN) held its 16th ECRAN Meeting on 11 and 12 April in the ECRE EU Office. Points under discussion included the EU Presidencies, national elections, strategies for lobbying and realistic advocacy objectives. Conclusions available upon request.
The ECRE Biannual General Meeting took place in Seville, Spain 7 – 9 June 2002. The special focus of the meeting was on refugees’ access to Europe: defending refugees’ right to seek asylum in Europe and exploring the screening of asylum applications within the region of origin. Please find attached the Conference Statement of the Biannual General Meeting (b030302).
ECRE has published comments on the Commission Working Document on the Relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations and instruments. Please visit the following link: http://www.ecre.org/statements/security.shtml#int
