UNHCR Standing Committee Meeting

Palais des Nations, Geneva,

5-7 March 2002

DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE

Statement on behalf of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the

Belarusian Movement of Medical Workers

by Andreas Danevad, Norwegian Refugee Council

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) is a network of about 70 agencies across Europe. The Belarusian Movement of Medical Workers is an NGO providing legal counselling for asylum seekers and refugees in Belarus.

This presentation is made in our role as the PARinAC Focal Points for Europe.

In this statement, I shall focus on two areas of interest: Firstly I will address the process of asylum harmonisation in the European Union and secondly, I will briefly outline some of the main issues regarding refugees and displaced persons in Eastern Europe.

At the Ministerial Meeting of State Parties to the 1951 Convention, the High Commissioner described the 50^th anniversary of the Convention as "an important opportunity to reflect on the structures currently in place to protect refugees and to find solutions to their plight". During the same week, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of government of the European Union Member States committed themselves to a Europe of "humane values…liberty, solidarity and above all diversity"… "a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heartrending injustices". How is this commitment reflected in EU Members States' responses to the plight of refugees reaching the Union's borders?

At the Laeken Summit, the European Council noted that progress in the asylum harmonisation process has been slower and less substantial than expected. While reaffirming its adherence to the policy guidelines and objectives defined at Tampere two year ago, the Council undertook to adopt as soon as possible a common policy on asylum and immigration.

NGOs have long advocated for a common asylum policy that will put an end to the current "protection lottery" in Europe. What has concerned us however has been the emphasis placed by Member States on deterrence rather than protection; an emphasis that is also to be found in the Conclusions of the Laeken Summit. The Conclusions call for measures to ensure more effective control of external borders and fight illegal immigration. However, this is not counter-balanced by a firm commitment to guaranteeing access to and provision of international protection to those in need. NGOs stress the importance of ensuring that control measures carefully balance Member States' legitimate interests in controlling their borders and their international obligations under the Refugee Convention. The recently published European Commission Communication on Illegal Immigration states that "the fight against illegal immigration has to be conducted sensitively and in a balanced way" and proposes that Member States should explore possibilities of offering rapid access to protection so that refugees do not need to resort to illegal immigration or people smugglers. The NGO Community would recommend that this approach is fully endorsed by Member States and clearly reflected in the forthcoming EU Action Plan on Illegal Immigration.

The Laeken Conclusions also called for "a new impetus and guidelines to make up for delays in some areas". With regard to the fight against terrorism – European States have recently demonstrated their capacity and political will to overcome concerns about national sovereignty and differences in their legislation and work towards a common European approach. This is in stark contrast to an apparent absence of willingness to reach agreement upon EU asylum legislation that bridges the gaps between national policies and raises standards to a level that is in line with international human rights and refugee law. Recent debates on asylum procedures and family reunification are clear examples of this trend. In the aftermath of the Laeken Summit, NGOs are concerned that in the search for agreement Member States might seek to adopt minimal rather than minimum standards of refugee protection that incorporate some of the most criticised features of national asylum systems and allow for maximum national discretion. This is not only bad news for the Union but also for the world refugee regime give the export value of EU asylum policies.

Let me know turn to the situation in the Eastern Europe. As of end-January 2002, all Eastern European countries have ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Notwithstanding, NGOs consider that there are still considerable barriers to the full implementation of the 1951 Convention with some national asylum provisions not fully corresponding to international standards of refugee protection.

In some Eastern European countries, asylum seekers face considerable difficulties in accessing fair asylum determination procedures. A number of countries are still implementing a pre-screening procedure, which excludes asylum seekers from status determination. Some authorities indiscriminately apply the “safe third country” rule to refuse access to the asylum procedure while others have introduced a provision whereby asylum seekers who have entered the country illegally must lodge an asylum application within a certain timeframe otherwise their application cannot be considered. Asylum seekers who arrive at international airports are often not given the opportunity to apply for asylum and many are automatically deported. A number of countries have introduced a right of appeal against an initial rejection. However, this appears to be far from effective because of the low number of appeals and positive court decision. In most countries there are no provisions to grant complementary protection on humanitarian grounds.

The system of “propiska” remains one of the main obstacles preventing access to social rights for asylum seekers. Most Eastern European countries have no refugee reception centres where asylum seekers can be accommodated for the period during which their cases are being considered. Lack of travel documents for refugees in some states has effectively removed the right of asylum seekers to freedom of movement.

In his statement to the Ministerial Meeting of State Parties to the 1951 Convention, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, talked of refugees as "men, women and children like ourselves…(who) depend on the protection and solidarity of the communities hosting them". NGOs are concerned by developments throughout Europe that seem to highlight the dwindling basis of European solidarity towards persons in need of protection. This is particularly apparent since the events of September 11^th. The need for political leadership has never been greater to strengthen public support for refugees and set meaningful protection standards for those whose circumstances lead them to justifiably seek access and protection in Europe. Thank you.