No

No. 4

October 2002

ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE

Policy developments.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

UNHCR.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Global Consultations......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

The UNHCR Executive Committee’s 53^rd session............................................................................................................................. 3

Council of Europe............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.............................................................................................................. 4

OSCE.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights................................................................................................................... 4

AFGHANISTAN....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS.................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Austria........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Belgium...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Bosnia......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Czech Republic...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Denmark.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Finland....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

France........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Germany.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Greece........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Ireland........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Jordan......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Macedonia (FYROM)........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

The Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Norway....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Russia.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Spain............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Sweden....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Switzerland.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Turkey......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

United Kingdom.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

PUBLICATIONS...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

NEW WEB SITES.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

EVENTS......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Legal Developments................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE......................................................................................................... 4

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE............................................................................................................................................................. 4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism (2002)...................................................................................... 4

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Georgia...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Malta........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Moldova..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Poland........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Turkey 1..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Turkey 2..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

12^TH General Report on the CPT’s activities....................................................................................................................................... 4

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS......................................................................................................................................... 4

Article 8 ECHR, expulsion on the grounds of national security............................................................................................... 4

Article 8 ECHR, order to leave because of drug trafficking...................................................................................................... 4

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS.................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Canada....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Cyprus........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Italy.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Portugal..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Romania.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Russian Federation............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

ELENA............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Brussels Developments........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

PRESIDENCIES OF THE EU.......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

The Danish Presidency..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

The forthcoming Greek Presidency........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Council of the European Union.............................................................................................................................................................. 4

European Commission...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

European Parliament...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

European Convention for the Future of Europe.................................................................................................................... 4

Integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU Accession to the ECHR............................ 4

External Action................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice........................................................................................................................................... 4

EU ENLARGEMENT............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

ECRE................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

ERF Project............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Central, South-Eastern & Eastern Europe............................................................................................................. 4

Central Europe Fundraising project........................................................................................................................................................ 4

South Eastern Europe:...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

ECRE in Eastern Europe................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

UNHCR

Global Consultations

Following the final Global Consultations meeting in May 2002, UNHCR completed an Agenda for Protection derived from the entire Global Consultations process. The Agenda is the first comprehensive framework for global refugee policy in five decades. It was referred for endorsement to the 53^rd session of UNHCR’s Executive Committee, which took place on 30 September – 4 October in Geneva.

The Agenda for Protection has six main goals:

· Strengthened implementation of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol;

· Protecting refugees within broader migration movements;

· Sharing of burdens and responsibilities more equitably and building of capacities to receive and protect refugees;

· Addressing security-related concerns more effectively;

· Redoubling the search for durable solutions; and

· Meeting the protection needs of refugee women and children.

For further information, please contact:

1^st Track – Ministerial Meeting of States Parties/Agenda for Protection: José Riera (Riera@unhcr.ch)

2^nd Track – Expert Roundtables, 3^rd Track – ExCom Process, Regional Meetings: Walpurga Englbrecht (Englbrew@unhcr.ch)

The UNHCR Executive Committee’s 53^rd session

The UNHCR Executive Committee’s 53^rd session was held from 30 September to 4 October 2002 in Geneva. The High Commissioner in his opening statement focused on key refugee and displacement issues, management issues, implementation of the Agenda for Protection, the possible implementation of a forum for discussion of specific issues, the notion of “Convention Plus”, an update on “the UNHCR 2004” process and its relationship with the Agenda for Protection, and financial matters. The session further contained a Briefing on the Outcome of the NGO’s Pre-Excom Consultations, an Informal Briefing by UNHCR’s Chief of Mission in Kabul, a Briefing on “Prospects for Solutions for the Uprooted in Sri Lanka”, Exchange of View and Information on Follow-Up to the Agenda for Protection, Informal Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Consultations on Refugees, Displaced Persons and Migrants (APC) for APC Member States. Conclusions were adopted on 4 October. For more information on the 53^rd session: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/openlist.html.

This month UNHCR published a Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees. UNHCR hopes that the Note clarifies some pertinent aspects of the position of Palestinian refugees under international refugee law, and serves as useful guidance for decision makers in asylum proceedings.

UNHCR published Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Economic and Social Council presented for the substantive session of the Economic and Social Council 1-26 July 2002. The document is available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/caf3deb2b05d4f35c1256bf30051a003?Opendocument.

UNHCR and the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture (VFST) published a handbook entitled: Refugee Resettlement: An International Handbook to Guide Reception and Integration. It is targeted primarily at countries or communities who are planning to receive resettled refugees. It addresses issues such as initial reception of resettled refugees, ways of preparing receiving communities, language training, education, employment, and the special needs of children. The publication is available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/template/++wLFqZpGdBnqBeUh5cTPeUzknwBoqeRhkx+XX+eRhkx+XX+BdqeIybnM

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has released a document, Refugee Women, in which it urges States to make asylum procedures available to trafficked women: “Some trafficked women may be able to claim refugee status under the 1951 Convention… In individual cases, being trafficked could therefore be the basis for a refugee claim where the State has been unable or unwilling to provide protection against such harm or threats of harm. It is crucial to the protection of individual women for States to ensure that trafficked women and girls who wish to seek asylum also have access to asylum procedures”, Refugee Women, EC/GC/02/8, para 19. The full document can be found in PDF format at: http://www.unhcr.ch/prexcom/standocs/english/gc02_8e/pdf

UNHCR Policy on Refugees in Urban Areas: Report of a UNHCR/NGO Workshop (EPAU/2002/09) is available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3d57c2724&page=research

At the request of UNHCR, the Italian Consortium of Solidarity produced a report entitled: Working with Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Moldova: The Role of NGOs. The survey analyses UNHCR’s co-operation with NGOs in Moldova and their support to the implementing partners and to other NGOs working in the field of human rights protection, dealing in particular with refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons. The report is available at: http://www.unhcr.md/article/ics_report.htm.

UNHCR Statistics

Statistics released by UNCHR show that the total number of people claiming asylum in the industrialised world fell by 12% to 268,498 in the first 6 months of this year. They included 22,836 Iraqis, down 15% from the previous 6 months. Afghans accounted for the second largest number, but their requests plunged 44% to 15,514. Requests for asylum in 24 countries of Europe dropped by 12% to 216,599. Britain received the largest number of applications with 51,500 (a 10% increase compared to the previous 6 months), followed by Germany with 36,259 (a 24% drop on the previous 6 months).

Council of Europe

The 7^th Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Migration Matters took place on 16-17 September in Helsinki. It was attended by representatives from all 44 Council of Europe member states, as well as representatives from Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and several United Nations and European Union bodies. The conference was intended to reach agreement on a new advisory body on immigration. It was also aimed at achieving closer co-operation between European nations and source countries.

The Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) agreed to extend to 31 December 2002 the deadline for preparation by the CDDH of an opinion on Recommendation 1504 (2001) of the Parliamentary Assembly “Non-expulsion of long-term immigrants”, and to 31 July 2003 the deadline for preparation by the CDDH of a feasibility study on means of reinforcing interaction between the European Court of Human Rights and national courts.

The Parliamentary Assembly report and recommendation entitled: Population Displacement in South-Eastern Europe: Trends, Problems, Solutions (Doc 9519) by Mrs Ans Zwerver of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography was produced on 15 July. Noting the poor economic situation and infrastructure, the high unemployment rate and the lack of economic prospects are extremely discouraging factors for potential returnees, the recommendation calls for more international financial assistance and loans for projects in the field of returns and integration, as well as for the increased economic involvement and investment in return.

Report and recommendation entitled: Creation of a charter of intent on clandestine migration (Doc 9522, 15 July 2002) by Mr John Wilkinson calls for the adoption of a single and comprehensive pan-European instrument addressing the root causes of clandestine migration, the rights of clandestine migrants, and co-operation between countries of origin, transit and destination.

A report entitled: Situation of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Doc 9479, 4 June) was prepared by Mr Boriss Cilevičs of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. The Rapporteur recommends a number of measures to be taken in order to achieve durable solutions, and addresses both to the authorities of Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro and the international community. The Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendation 1569 (2002) incorporating the findings of the report.

The report entitled: Situation of Refugees and Displaced Persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (Doc 9480, 4 June), by Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, notes that there are more than one million displaced people in South Caucasus. Following the report, Recommendation 1570 (2002) was adopted, urging the Council of Europe member states to continue providing support for displaced persons in Trascaucasia and urging the three republics to elaborate and implement, in co-operation with the international community, overall strategies for durable solutions and to improve the conditions of refugees and IDPs. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers strengthen concrete programmes in the field of its competence; promote the long-term solutions in regard to refugees and displaced persons in the region.

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance

In the context of its recently adopted Programme of Action on Relations with Civil Society, ECRI is organising information sessions and round-tables on issues related to combating racism and intolerance. The first event in the series of such round-tables will be organised in Bucharest, Roomania on 16 October 2002. The main themes of this Round table will be ECRI's Report on Romania; Romania's new anti-discrimination legislation; Romania's Strategy for Improving the Condition of the Roma; and the role of the media in fighting racism and xenophobia.

On 23 July ECRI released 4 new reports examining racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance in Finland, Latvia, Malta and Ukraine. ECRI recognises that in all four Council of Europe member countries positive developments have occurred. At the same time, the reports detail continuing grounds for concern for the Commission.

Further information on ECRI activities is available at: http://www.coe.int/t/E/human_rights/ecri/

OSCE

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe released a 270-page report in July that called on foreigners working in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo to refrain from visiting bars with prostitutes and in co-operating with smugglers. The report notes that enforcement is difficult. Traffickers increasingly use ex-prostitutes who return home to recruit girls, and some manipulate aid agencies. Data are often not reliable. The report says that: “prevention of trafficking is used as an argument for refusing young women entry to a country or for refusing to issue the women a visa, and then, in the police statistics, these cases are relabelled as successful cases of rescued ‘victims of trafficking’.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

The annual OSCE human rights conference (Human Dimension Implementation Meeting) took place in Warsaw on 9-19 September. With more than 700 government representatives, international experts and human rights activists from 55 OSCE countries it was the largest human rights conference ever organised by the OSCE and the biggest such meeting in Europe.

The conference ended with a strong call on governments to redouble efforts to eradicate human rights violations and push forward democratic reform in the OSCE area. In his closing speech, the ODIHR Director stressed that an effective fight against terrorism requires a functioning and fair system of rule of law. He also said that much more needed to be done to combat discrimination against ethnic or religious minorities, migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons as well as women. For further information visit: http://www.osce.org/news/generate.php3?news_id=2747

AFGHANISTAN

A tripartite agreement on voluntary returns of refugees was signed on 28 September in Paris between the French Government, the Afghan Transnational Authorities and UNHCR. The Afghan Minister for Refugees and Repatriation, Mr Enyutullah Nazari, has warned that returns will not be viable if the international community does not accelerate assistance provided to the country to secure the reintegration of returnees. A similar agreement with the UK was signed on 12 October in Kabul, under which UNHCR would provide information and counselling to Afghans and would monitor the voluntariness of the return. Although voluntary repatriation is given a strong priority, it is recognised that Afghans without protection needs or other humanitarian concerns can legitimately be returned “in a phased, orderly and humane” process that will be “accomplished in manageable numbers and will take account of the availability of accommodation”. For the most part, such returns will not be considered “before the end of the winter months, i.e. not before 1 April 2003”. All three signatories pledged themselves to take special measures to safeguard family unity and also measures for vulnerable groups, particularly unaccompanied minors for whom a number of specific safeguards are outlined.

UNHCR’s Response to the Afghanistan Crisis Donor Update of 1 October informs that through the last week of September, the total number of facilitated returns to Afghanistan stood at 1,716,346 individuals (305,390 families). Of these, 1,498,027 (271,833 families) have come from Pakistan and 208,770 (31,311 families) from Iran.

As winter approaches, returns from Pakistan are dropping off, and only one voluntary repatriation centre remains open. At the same time, numbers of returns from Iran have risen. Cases of “induced return” continue to be reported from both Iran and Pakistan. On 6 October it was announced that at least 215 families had been recorded crossing back into Pakistan at the Turkham border crossing in eastern Nangarhar province during the previous week. UNHCR commented that the return was partly a seasonal migration due to the drop in temperatures, and was partly prompted by concerns over safety in Afghanistan.

Following the Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Council of 21-22 June, EU justice and home affairs ministers gathered in Luxembourg on 15 October to discuss plans to repatriate 400,000 Afghan refugees. The Presidency draft of a comprehensive plan for return to Afghanistan focuses on the voluntary return but does not rule out forced repatriation. The draft plan covers all steps from pre-departure measures in the host countries through travel measures to post-arrival follow-up as far as the chosen destination of the returnees. The Afghanistan return plan is scheduled to be adopted by the Council at the next JHA Council meeting on 28- 29 November and to enter into force as soon as possible thereafter. This programme will likely complement rather than replace initiatives already begun by some of the member states.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

Austria

In August the Minister of the Interior Ernst Strasser announced his plan to revise Austria’s asylum law. Asylum procedures are to be speeded up and an initial decision is to be handed out within 72 hours. The asylum applicant would be obliged to co-operate with the authorities and be available to them during the procedure. Mr Strasser is planning to build two reception centres where asylum seekers would have to stay and wait until the preliminary decision.

Belgium

On 24 July the social security officers (CPAS) of 9 municipalities in Wallonia announced their intention to lodge a complaint with courts and the Supreme Court (Conseil d’Etat) against the Minister for Social Integration’s decision to cease to reimburse to 58 of the 589 CPAS funds spent on asylum seekers. In the case of 34 of them, the sanction is being applied because none of the asylum seekers assigned to their municipality really reside there. In the case of the remaining 24 cases, only 5% of the asylum seekers registered actually reside there. The remaining 95% reside elsewhere. The savings obtained by refusing reimbursement to these 58 CPAS and others in future are to be transferred to a special fund, which will be shared out among the CPAS of those municipalities having a lot of asylum seekers. The Union of Flemish Towns and Cities and its Brussels counterpart have so far not taken any initiative against the decree.

There will be changes to asylum procedures to take into account the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Čonka case (Application No 51564/99, judgment of 5 February 2002). The Federal Government is to introduce, by Royal Decree, suspensive effect to appeals submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court (Conseil d’Etat) as a matter of urgency. To the five days granted to a rejected asylum seeker to leave the country will be added a further five days to enable the Conseil d’Etat to make a decision. The Belgian Government will also take into account the criticisms made by the European Court concerning the use of deception by the police to expel rejected asylum seekers. The Ministry of Interior will issue new instructions to the police, reminding them that it is prohibited to use tricks to get rejected asylum seekers to present themselves so as to be able to arrest and deport them. Finally, the Federal Government will soon formalise the protection granted to rejected asylum seekers when it is believed that their expulsion would amount to a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These asylum seekers will be entitled to receive a real status of temporary protection and will be issued with a renewable residence permit of six months of validity. After one year, the persons will be entitled to a temporary residence permit.

On 12 August Belgian and British officials announced closer co-operation in combating irregular migration. The UK expressed its willingness to pay for detection devices installed in the Belgian ports of Zeebrugge and Ostende, to prevent the clandestine departure of people wanting to seek asylum in the UK. Belgian and British immigration officials also agreed to jointly screen passengers boarding the Eurostar for London at the Gare du Midi in Brussels.

Bosnia

On 3 July the UNHCR office in Sarajevo informed that more than one million Bosnians had still not returned to their former homes since the conflicts ended almost six years ago. Of this number about 600,000 have received some form of protection, permanent or temporary, abroad and a further 500,000 are still displaced within Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to Enver Morgić, Chairman of the Bosnian branch office of Helsinki Watch, the repatriation process is slow due to the obstruction of authorities as well as the physical, legal, economic and social insecurity.

Czech Republic

On 1 August Prime Minister Vladimir Spidia made an appeal to members of the Roma community urging them not to leave the country. On the same day the Government’s Council for Romani Community Affairs recommended that Romanis whose asylum applications abroad had been turned down be not paid social benefits retroactively after their return to the Czech Republic.

On 6 August, as the 13^th round of British checks on air passengers at the Prague Ruzyne airport ended, the Czech Government’s Commissioner for Human Rights Jan Jarab described the procedure as a failure and ineffective, considering that the number of Czech nationals applying for asylum in the UK had significantly increased. Checks were resumed again in September.

On 20 September British journalists were allowed to film 48 Czechs, including 21 children, being deported from Britain by plane. The Home Office hoped that the video, to be shown on Czech television, would discourage migrants from the Czech Republic from seeking asylum in Britain. The measure was severely criticised.

Denmark

On 14 August the Government’s spokesperson on development aid Pia Larsen suggested that the savings obtained from the tougher policy on asylum be used to increase aid given to refugees having sought protection near their home region and to those countries of origin of most of the people seeking asylum in Denmark. According to the draft budget for next year presented by Minister of Finance Thor Pedersen on 27 August, the tighter asylum policy is expected to produce savings of at least 700 million Dkr.

On 21 August it was announced that the country’s 52 reception centres are to be visited in view of identifying trained engineers among asylum seekers. The chosen ones will then be offered intensive Danish language courses and some training, followed by internships of up to six months, in view of further employment in Denmark.

16 Red Cross centres in Denmark are closing; among which is Margretheholm, with all its 200 occupants to be relocated by 31 August.

Finland

By mid-June the so-called influx of Roma asylum seekers appeared to have ended. The Finnish authorities were in fact considering measures of emergency reception and how to discourage others from coming to Finland to seek asylum. On 4 June Sonja Haemaelainen, senior advisor at the Department for Refugees and Asylum of the Finnish Ministry of Interior, stated that her Government was considering distributing information leaflets among members of the Roma community in Central and Eastern Europe to inform them of Finland’s new accelerated asylum procedure. Fearing the arrival of more Roma asylum-seekers the Finnish Ministry of Labour took steps to increase the accommodation capacity of the country’s 14 reception centres for asylum seekers. The Ministry announced that it did not intend to open new ones. In the 1990s Finland had 20 reception centres for asylum seekers.

France

On 21 August the Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy paid a visit to Cherbourg and promised the local authorities that more police and border officials would be sent there to cope with the increasing number of would-be asylum seekers, in connection with the announced closure of Sangatte centre. The Minister also promised personnel to deal with the irregular migrants, including interpreters. The ports of Quistreham (Calvados) and Roscoff (Finistère) are also experiencing a significant increase in the number of irregular migrants apprehended.

On 25 September the French Government announced proposed reforms to its asylum policies aimed at speeding up decision-making. By 1 January 2004 the government hopes to reduce the time to one to two months and to promptly send home rejected asylum seekers. More group expulsions will be organised. Another attempt is expected to be made to increase the period of remand during which a person without authorisation of stay may be held pending his/her removal from the country. Importantly, the new asylum bill is expected to bring the so called territorial asylum (currently available to those fleeing non-state persecution through the prefecture of the region where they reside) in the domain of the French Refugee Office (OFPRA). The OFPRA is also planning to add 13 more states to its list of safe countries, namely Bangladesh, Botswana, Costa Rica, Estonia, Gabon, Ghana, Latvia, Lithuania, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Slovenia and South Africa.

Sangatte camp in France will be closed to new entrants from 15 November and is expected to close completely by April next year. From 27 September all residents are to be registered by the Red Cross. UNHCR will have an advisory role in the closure programme. There will be a joint UK/French programme of voluntary returns involving UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration. Some of those rejected will be offered E2,000 to return to their countries of origin. The UK Home Secretary David Blunkett and the French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy also agreed that there would be enforced returns of Sangatte residents where necessary and possible.

Germany

The Conference of Federal and Regional Ministers of Interior (IMK) that met in Bremerhaven on 5-6 June did not follow the Federal Minister of the Interior Otto Schilly (SPD) who had recommended an end to the so-called ‘tolerated status’ enjoyed by members ethnic minorities in Kosovo. Although the IMK decided that the repatriation of Kosovo war refugees could begin already this year, the return of those belonging to ethnic minorities will, for the time being, be on a voluntary basis. At the same time, Fritz Behrens (SPD), Minister of the Interior of North Rhine-Westphalia rules out granting residence permits to members of ethnic minorities in Kosovo. According to Mr Behrens, the repatriation of Kosovar refugees will be carried out in close co-operation with the UN administration there. UNHCR representative in Germany Stefan Berglund has expressed the view that the repatriation of members of ethnic minorities of Kosovo should be only on a voluntary basis. UNHCR is working on a assumption that the Federal and regional ministers will accept the conclusion of the UN administration in Kosovo should it decide that forced repatriation is, for the time being, out of the question.

In an open letter dated 5 June to the Conference of the Federal and Regional Ministers of Interior (IMK) held in Bremerhaven from 5-6 June the Committee on Human Rights presided by a member of the Green Party Christa Nickels called for a halt to the repatriation of rejected Russian asylum seekers of Chechen origin.

The post of Federal Commissioner for Asylum Affairs has ceased to exist since 1 July 2002, which was welcomed by pro-asylum seeker NGOs. The post was essentially created for the purpose of controlling decisions of the Federal Office for Refugees (BAFI), which is supposed to be fully independent of the Federal Government. The abolition of the post has however been replaced with another measure in the new Immigration Law; viz all positive asylum decisions will be subject to review after three years to verify whether refugee status is still warranted, in other words, whether the situation in the home country has improved enough for the refugee to return.

The Federal Constitutional Court is going to consider on 23 October the opposition conservatives’ case against the government’s new immigration law, which they argue was passed unconstitutionally last March. It is expected to deliver a ruling before 1 January, when the law is scheduled to take effect. The government claims the law is designed to admit skilled foreigners while tightening asylum rules. The conservatives complain that it sets no limit to immigration.

Greece

45 NGOs met in Athens on 13-15 June in the framework of the General Assembly of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Framework (EMHRN). Participants included NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Article 19 as well as national human rights groups from Greece and other Mediterranean countries. A document was signed condemning Greece’s systematic violations of the rights of the thousands of potential asylum seekers pending judicial or administrative violations.

Ireland

It has been reported that almost 400 people suspected of being illegal immigrants have been detained in Stranraer, Ireland during the past year, according to figures published by Dumfries and Galloway Police. It is alleged that illegal immigrants who have been refused asylum in the UK are using Scotland’s main ferry link with Northern Ireland to lodge a claim in the Republic of Ireland. A source at the National Criminal Intelligence Service claimed that Ireland was being “used as a back door” for entry to the UK.

Jordan

In mid-August the Director of the Jordanian Department on Residence and Borders, Brigadier General Sobhi Moussa Al Abadi notified the Minister of the Interior that the deportation of rejected asylum seekers from Europe would no longer be tolerated. Rejected asylum seekers arriving from Europe would be sent back on the same plane. The decision followed the failed attempt by the Ukrainian Government to deport 6 Iraqi nationals.

Macedonia (FYROM)

At the end of June 2002 Macedonia hosted approximately 3,306 refugees. Out of this figure, 1,546 are housed in the two collective centres in the Skopje area, Shuto Orizari and Katlanovo, while 1,631 are accommodated with host families. The number of internally displaced persons resulting from the armed conflict last year was estimated at about 170,000; out of this number, an estimated 150,000 persons have returned since August 2001. As of early July 2002, the number of internally displaced persons was 13,401 (11,133 with host families and 2,268 in collective centres). Another approximately 3,500 persons are registered as Macedonian refugees in Kosovo.

The Netherlands

The new coalition government comprising the Christian Democrats (CDA), Fortuyn’s List and the free market VVD initially had put forward in July a 45-page blue print for reform. The programme included radical plans to tighten immigration policy, to discourage ‘drug tourism’ and to decrease social welfare spending.

In respect of immigration there are three key points:

· obliging asylum seekers to pay a nearly 7,000 euro deposit for compulsory Dutch language and citizenship lessons;

· restrictions on bringing non-western family members into the country;

· a clampdown on business employing illegal immigrants.

In a radio interview on 13 August the Minister for Immigration and Integration Hilbrand Nawijn informed that he was considering the possibility of using military barracks to detain irregular migrants. He also said that he would consider the suggestion made by a fellow party member, Firouze Zeroual, who pointed out that as the number of new asylum seekers was falling, the vacant places in reception centres could be transformed into detention facilities for irregular migrants.

The Dutch government has expressed concern about the activities of its 800,000 Dutch Muslims. With a view to schooling imams in “Dutch values” it has set up a college in Soesterberg in Utrecht province, which will give imams intensive Dutch language lessons and courses on freedom of speech and religion, euthanasia and non-discrimination.

On 17 September Queen Beatrix presented the new coalition government budget and policy guidelines in her annual address to the houses of parliament in The Hague. The budget for the year ending in December 2003 cuts funds for processing would-be immigrants and asylum-seekers, while boosting funds for detaining and deporting them. The policy guidelines set for the next four years provide for a 25% reduction in immigration in its first year; making entry into the country without a visa a criminal offence; imprisonment of would-be immigrants who have been rejected while they await deportation; taking of DNA fingerprints of asylum-seekers who arrive without a valid passport; and expulsion of any foreigner, with or without a visa, who commits a crime while in the Netherlands. The opposition maintains that many of the government’s plans are impossible to implement.

Norway

On 10 June the mayors of three municipalities, Kvaefjord (Troms), Loedingen and Nordreisa, informed that they had written to the UDI and to the Prime Minister requesting that priority be given to the expulsion of rejected asylum seekers who have committed offences. If nothing is done they threaten to shut down the reception centres for asylum seekers located within their administrative territory.

On 2 July the Director of the Immigration Directorate (UDI) Trygve G. Nordby announced that the responsibility for providing legal counselling to asylum seekers was planned to be handed over to one single organisation, probably the Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS). Concerns have been expressed in some quarters that the present system whereby lawyers can recruit their own clients allows them to bribe asylum seekers. The government proposal is believed to be also motivated by concerns over the rising bill for legal aid.

On 8 July the head of information of the Immigration Directorate (UDI) Geir Loendal announced that a special reception centre would be built for asylum seekers with serious social or psychological problems. This follows a report from the office of the Auditor General which points out that many of the approximately 130 reception centres throughout the country have problems with asylum seekers who commit crimes, are violent or are suffering from psychological illness. The UDI is of the view that a specialised centre holding all asylum seekers with specific needs will be to the advantage of all refugees. It hopes to have the specialised centre ready by this autumn. It is to be noted that a similar Danish project has been extremely controversial.

Russia

Minister Vladimir Zorin, who oversees nationality policy, said that in 2003 the government plans to create around 300 migration control points that will allow the authorities to "prevent the penetration of undesirable immigrants and also those people who engage in illegal activities on the borders of this or that region". The new centres will augment the 100 control points currently operating at the country's 450 border crossings, according to Zorin.

Spain

On 14 August the Minister of the Interior Angel Acebes announced that 142 million Euros would be spent over the next two years on the setting up of a network of radar, sensors and night vision cameras along the country’s coastal border of the region of Andalucía, the two enclave cities of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as the Canary Islands. The network gives frontier police a 24-hour watch on any vessel, however small, crossing the nine-mile Gibraltar Strait.

On 5 September the Minister of the Interior Angel Acebes informed that he would soon introduce a bill amending the Aliens Act with a view to enabling the expulsion of irregular migrants found guilty of minor offences, liable to a prison sentence of between 6 months and 5 years.

On 10 September the Ministry of the Interior confirmed that the Junior Minister responsible for Immigration, Ignacio González, had requested the assistance of the Chambers of Commerce of the Canary Islands to pave the way for the negotiation of readmission agreements with the governments of several West African states.

Sweden

On 28 June the Swedish Migration Board reported that the number of Czech and Slovak members of the Roma minority seeking asylum in Sweden appeared to have fallen significantly. The Swedish authorities had earlier voiced concerns that they would experience a surge in claims from Roma asylum seekers this year. According to Migration News Sheet (July 2002), the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to implement an information campaign to discourage members of the Roma community from trying to seek asylum in Sweden, as the Swedish authorities believe that the arrival of Roma asylum seekers has been the result of well-planned and organised trips.

On 14 August the Migration Board announced its decision to make it easier for certain categories of Palestinians, namely family members of Palestinians living in Sweden and people taking part in cultural and scientific exchanges, to obtain a visitor’s visa.

Responding to calls by the Confederation of Swedish Entrepreneurs for more immigrant labour, the Minister for Integration Mona Sahlin advocated granting asylum seekers the right to work upon their arrival in Sweden. She also said that it is necessary that official recognition be given to asylum seekers’ educational qualifications.

Switzerland

In July the Swiss government announced plans to introduce a 4-year programme to improve the health of immigrants as part of efforts to promote integration. The programme will cost SFr 26 million and will include education of medical staff treating immigrant patients, as well as prevention projects and information campaigns. At the same time, two of the main political parties, with the right wing People's Party (SVP/UDC) in particular, strongly oppose the new health measures. The People's Party, which is well represented in the Federal Assembly, is also advancing a bill drastically limiting the possibilities to apply for asylum and making cuts in social security programmes for asylum seekers. Swiss voters will have their final say on the bill on 24 November.

The government published a new legislative proposal for discussion in the parliament. The proposal envisages a stricter safe third country rule and an accelerated airport asylum determination procedure. It introduces a new scheme for subsidiary protection taking into account the necessity for long-term residents to integrate.

The Swiss authorities believe that Switzerland has become an attractive country of destination because unlike many West European countries it has not signed a readmission agreement with any African country. As many asylum seekers applying in Switzerland are from Nigeria, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea, it is hoped that a readmission agreement with at least two of these countries will be signed soon, the first of which is likely to be Nigeria.

As from 1 October, 38 border control posts are to be linked to a new generation system of automatic identification of fingerprints (AFIS), which will enable the border authorities to rapidly verify the identification of foreigners whose identity is in doubt and to compare prints. The Federal Government has invested almost SFr 10 million in this system.

The airport of Kloten in the canton of Zurich has, since the end of August, had cameras in place to photograph disembarking passengers, for the purposes of identifying the flight and aircraft used by irregular migrants. It has however emerged that the system is not sufficiently effective. Moreover, at present there is no legal basis for this method of surveillance in Switzerland.

Turkey

It is reported that Turkey has detained 360 illegal immigrants on their way to Western Europe. Turkey, a candidate to join the European Union, is a transit point for thousands of illegal immigrants from Asia and the Middle East to Western Europe each year. Turkey is under pressure to crack down on the flow of illegal immigrants.

On 27 July 2001, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the human rights of migrants sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Turkey together with the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, after receiving information on the situation reportedly experienced by 7 persons of African origin who were said to have been detained in a police round-up together with 200 other immigrants. In a letter dated 6 August 2001, the Government of Turkey provided the Special Rapporteur with information on the above-mentioned case, stating that during the period of custody no form of racist or discriminatory treatment against the group of African origin had occurred and that during the period in which they had remained in Turkish police custody, none of them had been subjected to ill-treatment, though some of the detainees had refused the medical help and food which were offered. None of them had sought asylum in Turkey and almost all of them had acknowledged that they were in Turkey illegally and were waiting for an opportunity to enter Europe. Lastly, the Government of Turkey claimed that all those who were in Turkey illegally had been deported.

United Kingdom

On 2 June a Home Office spokesman confirmed that expenses for asylum seekers in the current financial year (1.04.2002-31.03.2003) would exceed the budgeted amount of £434 million. The Home Secretary David Blunkett blamed the increasing expenses on the growing number of asylum seekers and the inefficiencies in the asylum procedure. He promised to introduce legislative changes that would drastically reduce the time spent to examine “the very large numbers of unfounded case with no clear foundation at all” as well as “the whole lengthy appeals process”.

On 14 June the Home Office revealed that it is intended to deny asylum seekers access to the National Health Service (NHS). The Home Secretary David Blunkett believes that asylum seekers should be confined to receiving health care in the reception centre where they are to be accommodated.

Under a six-month scheme started by the Department of Health and the Home Office in July, all those claiming asylum in Kent, whether from the Eurostar or at ferry ports, are sent for a blood test to screen them for tuberculosis. Ministers are ready to extend the programme nationwide if necessary. They are also considering requiring all immigrants to be vaccinated against TB.

On 9 and 11 July respectively both Rushcliffe Borough Council in Nottinghamshire and Cherwell District Council in Oxfordshire rejected planning applications for the setting up the Government’s ‘new generation’ of self-contained reception centres which are also expected to provide educational and health services. The local council at Throckmorton in Worcestershire, whose territory has been chosen for the third site, is also expected to turn down the planning applications. Since the announcement of the location of three such reception centres in May, waves of wide opposition have been built up, with all sides condemning the idea of assigning asylum seekers to live in isolated rural areas where socio-cultural activities and public transport facilities are either absent or not within walking distance.

The Home Office is expected to once again propose that the EU develop European-wide temporary protection programmes for “genuine refugees”, to reduce the number of people travelling to Britain illegally in the backs of lorries or underneath cross-channel trains. Under the proposal, some of the foreigners recognised as being in need of protection in other EU states would be allowed to travel to Britain. The UK, in turn, would be tougher on foreigners who file "unfounded" asylum claims.

On 20 September journalists were allowed to film 48 Czechs, including 21 children, being deported from Britain by plane. The Home Office hopes that the video, to be shown on Czech television, will discourage migrants from the Czech Republic from seeking asylum in Britain.

On 26 September the Home Office announced that Sangatte camp in France will be closed to new entrants from 15 November and is expected to close completely by April next year. From 27 September, all residents are to be registered by the Red Cross. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) will have an advisory role in the closure programme. There will be a joint UK/French programme of voluntary returns involving UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration. The Home Secretary David Blunkett and the French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy also agreed that there would be enforced return of Sangatte residents where necessary and possible.

The Home Secretary David Blunkett is challenging the award of £340,000 of lottery funds to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC), arguing that the tactics used by this agency are not always legal and it opposes all restrictions on immigration. However the Community Fund, which has the final decision as to whether the grant will be withdrawn, said recently that no evidence had been submitted to prohibit the payment. The final decision is due in mid-October.

The Legal Services Commission, which controls legal aid to, among others, immigrants and asylum seekers, has stated that measures would be taken “to reduce the number of appeals brought in cases that are likely to fail”. Rejected asylum seekers who stand a good chance of securing a temporary residence permit and so-called test cases, the outcomes of which have a decisive influence on the applications of many other asylum seekers, risk losing part or all of the legal aid.

Developments concerning the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

On 10 June the Home Office announced an amendment to the nationality, immigration and asylum bill aimed at preventing refugees recognised in other EU states from taking advantage of the British social security system. According to the Home Office, the problem known as “benefit shopping” involves “thousands of people who come to the UK and claim support from local authorities when they have already been granted refugee status”. The proposed amendment to the National Assistance Act 1948 will remove the local authorities’ obligation to provide assistance to destitute refugees.

In response to the concern expressed in the House of Lords that under the new nationality, immigration and asylum bill rejected asylum seekers could be returned to third countries to await the outcome of their appeal, on 10 July the Government proposed setting up a panel of experts with the task of making a risk assessment of such countries.

The Asylum Coalition of unions and charities published on 4 October a report condemning the government's "apartheid" plans to educate asylum seeking children in accommodation centres, rather than local schools, to be implemented in the pending nationality, immigration and asylum bill.

On Monday 7 October the Home Secretary David Blunkett announced his new plans to end asylum seekers’ automatic right to claim benefits if they fail to apply for asylum when they first arrive in Britain or misrepresent themselves. Moreover, he intends to reintroduce a ‘white list’ of safe countries, including the EU candidate states. Furthermore, an end to the routine granting of exceptional leave to remain by country rather than on an individual basis is planned. These proposals are to be implemented through last minute amendments to the nationality, immigration and asylum bill. The Home Secretary also confirmed that he is to introduce a resettlement scheme from next April under which Britain will accept refugees nominated by UNCHR without them having to travel illegally to Britain.

The controversial nationality, immigration and asylum bill is currently at the final stages in the House of Lords. On Wednesday 9 October the opposition peers demanded new accommodation centres to be sited near cities and opposed segregated education for children of asylum seekers outside mainstream education. Furthermore, peers voted (by 77 to 71) to debar the government from deporting convicted criminal asylum seekers unless they had been convicted of jail sentences of 10 years or more. The Home Office vowed to overturn the defeat when the bill returns to the Commons.

PUBLICATIONS

On 19 August a new report by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was released in New York, according to which the international community must take stronger measures against human trafficking, including shoring up law enforcement and judicial means of combating the practice. The report will be discussed by the General Assembly when it convenes this autumn. Accra Mail holds the copyright. Distributed by All Africa Global Media (AllAfrica.com).

The UN Commission on Human Rights has published a report entitled: Specific Groups and Individual Migrant Workers, report of the Special Rapporteur Ms Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/52, can be downloaded at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/mmig.htm.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) and OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights published in June 2002 a report by Barbara Limanowska entitled: Trafficking in Human Beings in South Eastern Europe. The report is available at: http://www.unicef.org/sexual-exploitation.report_trafficking.html.

International Organisation for Migration

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) published in June report by Donna M. Hughes entitled: Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation: The Case of the Russian Federation as part of its Migration Research Series. The report identifies poverty and unemployment as the context in which trafficking has developed. It analyses the different categories of victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation and destination countries for transnational trafficking and summarises relevant laws and legislation, and the role of preventing programmes.

The IOM has recently published a Special Issue for the European Conference on Preventing and Fighting Trafficking in Human Beings, available at: http://www.iom.int//DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATION/EN/TB26.pdf.

The Council of Europe has published Collection of Treaties – Migration: Summaries and Texts of Treaties (2002), which includes the main texts published by the Council of Europe on rights for migrants. ISBN : 92-871-4939-9 Available from Council of Europe Publishing. E-mail : publishing@coe.int

Minority Rights Group International on 9 September published The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Paper by Alan Phillips. The paper explores the FCNM and how it is being developed by the Council of Europe, by States and by minorities during the first four years of the Convention coming into force. 10 major recommendations are made that would strengthen minority rights in Europe.

Formatted full text available at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/organizations/fcnm_pol_paper_aug.doc

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch issued a statement by Elizabeth Andersen entitled: Fix It First: A Human Rights Agenda for Extending EU Asylum and Migration Policy on the occasion of the CEPS/ERA/Sitra/Transcrime Conference: “Extending the Area of Freedom, Justice and Security Through Enlargement: Challenges for the European Union” (New York, 20 August 2002): http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/euasylum0820.htm.

The next in Human Rights Watch series of European Union Immigration Policy Commentaries is available online at: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/migrants/docs/recidence-permit.pdf. The document is a detailed Commentary on the European Commission Proposal for a Council Directive On the short-term residence permit issued to victims of action to facilitate illegal immigration or trafficking in human beings who cooperate with the competent authorities (July 2002). The proposal is critiqued from a victim protection standpoint.

In August Human Rights Watch also published a briefing paper entitled: Treating “Illegals” Legally: Commentary Regarding the European Commission Green Paper on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents available at: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/migrants/docs/ec-green-paper0802.pdf. The paper draws on research on the current treatment of migrants in several EU member states and identifies some of the key human right standards that should be at the core of any Community return policy, noticing that the Green Paper currently either references these standards incompletely or omits them altogether.

Report Discretion Without Bounds: The Arbitrary Implementation of Spanish Immigration Law published in July criticises the Spanish authorities’ uncoordinated and ad hoc application of Spanish Law 8/2000, available online at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/spain2/. The report is also available in Spanish at: http://www.hrw.org/spanish/informes/2002/discrecionalidad.html and in French at: http://www.hrw.org/french/reports/spn0602fr/.

UK Home Office

Refugee Integration: Can Research Synthesis Inform Policy? Feasibility Study Report (On-line Report 13/02) by Y. Schibel, M. Fazel, R. Robband and P. Garner commissioned by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate is available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr1302.pdf. The publication aims to consider how research synthesis can be applied to policies for refugee integration, to assess potentially relevant research studies in relation to topic, volume and quality and to outline options for developing an evidence-base to refugee integration policies in the UK.

Results of the research by Vaughan Robinson and Jeremy Segrott (Migration Unit at the University of Wales, Swansea) entitled: Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers carried out at the request of the Home Office were made public on 24 July. They reveal that asylum seekers’ decision to head to the UK depends on a number of factors, such as the presence of relatives or friends or members of their own ethnic community, colonial and cultural ties and affinities, language and financial means. The report is part of the Home Office Research Series and can be found at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors243.pdf. A research Findings has also been produced, which can be downloaded at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r172.pdf.

The Social Networks of Asylum Seekers and the Dissemination of Information About Countries of Asylum by Khalid Koser and Charles Pinkerton (Migration Research Unit, UCL) presents the findings of a feasibility study to identify the mechanisms by which asylum seekers obtain information about potential countries of asylum. The full report is available on-line at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/socialnetwork.pdf. The research Findings can be downloaded at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r165.pdf

On 31 July the Home Office published Asylum Statistics for 2001, by Tina Heath and Rachel Hill available at: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/migrants/docs/ec-green-paper0802.pdf.

The Home Office has also published Findings on The Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme: An Evaluation, which can be downloaded at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r175.pdf. The results of an independent evaluation carried out by Deloitte and Touche are summarised in the Findings by the Immigration Research and Statistics Service of the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

US Department of State

The US Department of State published in June 2002 a report entitled: Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 2000. Trafficking in Persons Report, containing comprehensive overviews of countries of origin.

British Refugee Council

The British Refugee Council and Oxfam published a new report entitled: Asylum System Institutionalises Poverty, which finds that asylum seekers are suffering from poverty levels and hardships unacceptable in a civilised society. To find out more about the report, visit: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/july2002/relea072.htm

Report: Lack of Support Adds to Hardship and Isolation for Disabled Refugees and Asylum Seekers was launched on 17 September by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Refugee Council. It finds that disabled refugees and asylum seekers, including people physically and mentally harmed by torture in their home countries, find themselves isolated in Britain without proper support from social services. The report can be downloaded at:
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/sept2002/relea083.htm.

Sri Lanka: Return to Uncertainty

The report examines in detail current developments in the peace process in Sri Lanka, outlines some of the continuing problems that may de-stabilise the process and considers the impact of refugee returns to the country. It can be downloaded at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/publications/index.htm#sri_lanka.

The Refugee Council has also recently published a Briefing on Kashmir at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/publications.pub014.htm

A new briefing has been produced for asylum seekers who are supported by NASS and have been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, explaining what needs to be done when support is withdrawn once protection has been granted. Translations will be available shortly.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/publications/pub002.htm#nass35.

The Refugee Council has also published two new briefings about the ‘hard cases’ support grant, one aimed at advisers, and one for asylum seekers. The briefings outline eligibility criteria and the application process, including advice for those considered ineligible for the grant and issues around asylum seekers at end of the process. The version for advisers can be downloaded from: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/publications/pub014.htm. The English version for clients, shortly available in translation, can be downloaded from: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/publications/pub002.htm#hard_cases

Other publications

The Norwegian Refugee Council launched its Internally Displaced People – Global Survey 2002, providing information and analysis on the situation of IDPs in 48 countries. For more information visit the IDP Project website at: http://www.ipdproject.org. ICVA maintains an email list for organisations interested in IDP issues, to register email: secretariat@icva.ch

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA) has produced a publication entitled: Making Asylum Application. A Best Practice Guide containing step-by-step practical guidelines to practitioners representing asylum seekers.

Refugee Education and Training Advisory Service (RETAS) and the World University Service (UK) have produced a report entitled: Qualifications of Refugees and Employment in Europe. A Research Report on Refugees in Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It covers the process of professional re-qualification and refugees’ access to employment in respective European countries. The section on the UK makes the first comprehensive analysis of the position of refugees in the labour market comparing it to other migrant workers and ethnic minorities.

The Maternity Alliance and London Detainee Support Group and Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) published in September a briefing paper entitled: A Crying Shame: Pregnant Asylum Seekers and Their Babies in Detention, aimed at highlighting the specific problems associated with the detention of vulnerable women and babies. It describes the findings of a small qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant women and mothers who have been detained, and makes recommendations based on those findings.

Galway Refugee Support Group (Ireland) has published a report by Catherine Kenny entitled: Asylum Seekers in Galway and the Right to Work, which documents the experiences of asylum seekers in Galway City in relation to the lack of the right to work and makes recommendations on the appropriate responses which could be developed to put the necessary support systems in place to enable asylum seekers to enter the labour market.

Smaïn Laacher has completed the first sociological study of the would-be asylum seekers accommodated at the Red Cross Reception Centre in Sangatte entitled: Foreigners in a Situation of Transit at the Humanitarian Emergency Reception Centre in Sangatte. The report provides a number of interesting findings that draw a picture quite different from the preconceived ideas of French and British politicians on the Sangatte camp. The report findings are available in French: http://www.croix-rouge.fr/goto/actualites/sangatte/smain-2002.asp.

Save the Children has published its third annual State of the World’s Mothers report entitled: Mothers & Children in War & Conflict. It brings attention to critical humanitarian and development needs in war-torn communities around the world, and suggests actions needed to support women who are raising the world’s future generations in the conditions of armed conflict.

The Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament have published a report by Jean Lambert MEP entitled: Refugees and the Environment. The Forgotten Element of Sustainability, calling for official recognition of environmental refugees and measures to tackle this global problem.

The Centre for Development Research (Copenhagen, Denmark) has published an issue paper entitled: The Migration-Development Nexus (July 2002). It highlights the links between migration, development and conflict, and reiterates that to align policies on migration and development, migrant and refugee diasporas must be acknowledged as a development resource.

The Lawyers Committee on Human Rights HuHGreleased a report entitled: A Year of Loss: Reexamining Civil Liberties Since September 11. The full report is currently posted on the website at: www.lchr.org/aftersept/loss/report.htm. A hard copy will be available in October. Check the website or email simmonsd@lchr.org.

A.C. Helton, The Price of Indifference. Refugee and Humanitarian Action in the New Century (Oxford: University Press, 2002) ISBN 0-19-925030-8 Hardback, £45.00. ISBN 0-19-925031-6 Paperback, £14.99. The book provides a review of humanitarian action over the past decade, focusing on forced displacement and the role of the United Nations.

NEW WEB SITES

A new IOM website focusing on human trafficking in the Baltic region has been launched: http://www.focus-on-trafficking.net as part of IOM ongoing anti-trafficking information campaign in the Baltics.

The new improved Electronic Immigration Network website www.ein.org.uk has relaunched with the entire ICCID country information database, a UK case law database and legal resources.

A new web page on the EC Treaty Title IV and developments on European asylum law: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wk9/hapklare_brokken/

EVENTS

The First International Congress on Child Migration will take place on 27-31 October 2002 in New Orleans, United States. For more information contact Child Migrants Trust, International Association of Former Child Migrants and Their Families, 28a Musters Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire NG2 7PL, UK. Tel: 00 44 115 982 2811or sue@sjaques.fsworld.co.uk, http://www.nottscc.gov.uk/child_migrants/congress/Index.htm

The Cicero Foundation will hold a conference entitled: European Migration and Refugee Policy: New Developments, which will take place in Rome on 14-15 November. For information contact The Cicero Foundation, 54 rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, Tel: +33 1 43 80 18 21, Fax: +33 1 42 67 92 04, Email: info@cicerofoundation.org;

http://www.cicerofoundation.org

For the 50^th anniversary of its creation, the CASTRAMI (Action Social Committee for the populations issued from the Immigrations) will organise on 21-22 November at the European Parliament in Strasbourg and in association with the Council of Europe and the European Parliament a conference entitled The Migrations in Europe in the XXIst century: “I – You – Us, or the Other is also Me”. For more information contact Comité d’action sociale en faveur de populations issues de l’immigration (CASTRAMI) 65 avenue de Vosges – 67000 Strasbourg. Tel: 03 88 35 52 72, email: castrami@wandaloo.fr

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

Case-law

Tunisia, Article 3 CAT, burden of proof

[CAT/C/28/D/2001, decision of 8 may 2002, Complaint No. 185/2001, C.B.A. Karoui v. Sweden]

The applicant, Mr Karoui, submits that, if returned to Tunisia, he will be arrested and tortured for his participation in the former Al-Nahdha Party, and in this connection, for agitation, disturbing the public order and collection of funds. He adds that there exists a consistent pattern of human rights violations by Tunisian authorities, in particular against political opponents. Mr. Karoui’s removal to Tunisia would therefore entail a high risk of being subjected to torture and thus a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The State party stresses that it is primarily up to the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account. In the present case Mr. Karoui has not been able to substantiate his claim that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Tunisia.

The Committee refers to its consideration of the report submitted by Tunisia, in 1997, where it expressed concern over the reported widespread practice of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment perpetrated by police and security forces. Later human rights reports form reliable sources suggest that a pattern of detention, imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment of persons accused of political opposition activities, including links with the Al-Nahdha Movement, still exist in Tunisia.

The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the inconsistencies in the information provided by the complainant in the asylum process in Sweden cast doubts on the veracity of his claim. However, the Committee attaches importance to the explanations for these inconsistencies given by the complainant, and reiterates its jurisprudence that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture.

The Committee finds it impossible to verify the authenticity of some of the documents provided by the complainant. However, in view of the substantive reliable documentation he had provided, including medical records, a support letter from Amnesty International Sweden, and an attestation for the Al-Nahdha chairman, the complainant should be given the benefit of the doubt, since he has provided sufficient reliable information for the burden of proof to shift. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Committee states that there are substantial ground exists for believing that the complainant may risk being subjected to torture if returned to Tunisia.

The full text of this decision can be viewed at:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/FramePage/TypeJurisprudence?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=15&Expand=1

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Case-Law

Recently, a couple of interesting rulings of the European Court concerning family life have been published.

See for the full text of the judgements of the European Court of Justice: www.curia.eu.int

Family life, EU-law, directive 1612/68, children, freedom of movement, citizenship

[Case 413/99, 17 September 1999, Baumbast, R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department]

In this case the Court stresses that EU law must be interpreted in the light of the requirement of respect for family life laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ruling concerns two families, both including a spouse who is not a national of an EU Member State.

Mrs Baumbast, a Colombian national, married a German national, in the United Kingdom in May 1990. Their family consists of two daughters, the elder, Mrs Baumbast's natural daughter, who is a Colombian national and the younger, who has dual German and Colombian nationality.

In June 1990, the members of the Baumbast family were granted residence permits/documents valid for five years. Between 1990 and 1993, Mr Baumbast pursued an economic activity in the United Kingdom, initially as an employed person and then as head of his own company. However, since that company failed and he was unable to obtain a sufficiently well-paid job in the United Kingdom, he has been employed since 1993 by German companies in China and Lesotho. Although Mr Baumbast has from time to time sought work in the United Kingdom since that date, his employment situation had not changed at the time of the order for reference.

During the material period, Mr and Mrs Baumbast owned a house in the United Kingdom and their daughters went to school there. They did not receive any social benefits and, having comprehensive medical insurance in Germany, they travelled there, when necessary, for medical treatment.

In May 1995, Mrs Baumbast applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom for herself and for the other members of her family. In January 1996, the Secretary of State refused to renew Mr Baumbast's residence permit and the residence documents of Mrs Baumbast and her children.

The other couple consists of a French national who was married to an American woman. Their two children have both French and US citizenship. Their mother, R. was only an American citizen. The family moved to the UK in 1990 and were granted residence permits valid for five years.

More than two years later, the couple divorced. Both parents remained in the UK and their children continued to attend school there. When the residence permit was up for renewal in 1995, R.’s application was denied on the grounds that, inter alia, her children were young enough to adapt to live in the USA if they had to accompany their mother there.

The situation of these two families raised issues concerning the interpretation of provisions concerning EU citizenship and Article 10 to 12 of Regulation 1612/68 on Freedom of Movement for workers within the Community.

The Court’s ruling as follows:

1. Children of a citizen of the European Union who have installed themselves in a Member State during the exercise by their parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that Member State are entitled to reside there in order to attend general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on Freedom of Movement for workers within the Community. The fact that the parents of the children concerned have meanwhile divorced, the fact that only one parent is a citizen of the Union and that parent has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State and the fact that the children are not themselves citizens of the Union are irrelevant in this regard.

2. In accordance with the case-law of the Court, Regulation No 1612/68 must be interpreted in the light of the requirement of respect of family life laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention. That requirement is one of the fundamental rights which, according to settled case-law, are recognised by Community law.

Where children have the right to reside in a host Member State in order to attend general educational courses pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, that provision must therefore be interpreted as entitling the parent who is the primary carer of those children, irrespective of his nationality, to reside with them in order to facilitate the exercise of that right notwithstanding the fact that the parents have meanwhile divorced or that the parent who has the status of citizen of the European Union has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State.

3. A citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can, as a citizen of the Union, enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exercise of that right is subject to the limitations and conditions referred to in that provision, but the competent authorities and, where necessary, the national courts must ensure that those limitations and conditions are applied in compliance with the general principles of Community law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality.

Family life, EU-law, deportation, public order

[Case C-60/00, 11 July 2002, Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department]

A national of a member state established in that state, who carries on a cross-border business providing services, may rely on community law for the purpose of enabling his spouse, who is a national of a third country, to obtain a right to reside in that state. The decision to deport Mrs Carpenter does not strike a fair balance between the right to respect for her family life and the maintenance of public order and public security.

Mary Carpenter, a Philippine national, was given leave in 1994 to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor for six months. She overstayed that leave without seeking an extension and, in May 1996, married Peter Carpenter, a national of the United Kingdom.

Mr Carpenter runs a business selling advertising space. The business is established in the United Kingdom, as are some of its customers, but a significant proportion of the business is conducted with advertisers established in other Member States. Mr Carpenter travels to those Member States for the purposes of his business.

In July 1996, Mrs Carpenter applied to the Secretary of State for leave to remain as the spouse of a United Kingdom national. The Secretary of State refused the application, and decided to make a deportation order against her because she had overstayed her original leave to enter.

Mrs Carpenter is challenging that decision. Two questions were referred by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to the European Court of Justice:

Does Community law apply to that situation, or, in other words, is there a connecting factor?

It is established that Mr Carpenter's business consists of providing services, for remuneration, to advertisers established, in particular, in other Member States. Those services involve travelling on business to those other Member States and cross-border services provided from the United Kingdom.

Mr Carpenter is therefore availing himself of his right freely to provide services. However, the Community Directive on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to the provision of services provides, in that context, for entry and residence, within the territory of another Member State, but does not govern the right of residence of members of the family of a provider of services in his Member State of origin.

Can a right of residence be derived from Community law in favour of the spouse?

The Court points out that the Community legislature has recognised the importance of ensuring the protection of the family life of nationals of the Member States in order to eliminate obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty. It is clear that the separation of Mr and Mrs Carpenter by her deportation would be detrimental to their family life and, therefore, to the conditions under which Mr Carpenter exercises a fundamental freedom. That freedom could not be fully effective if Mr Carpenter were to be deterred from exercising it by obstacles raised in his country of origin to the entry and residence of his spouse.

The Court states that a Member State may invoke reasons of public interest to justify a national measure which is likely to obstruct the exercise of the freedom to provide services only if that measure is compatible with the fundamental rights whose observance the Court ensures.

The decision to deport Mrs Carpenter constitutes an interference with the exercise by Mr Carpenter of his right to respect for his family life accorded by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is among the fundamental rights protected in Community law. The Court notes that even though no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention, the removal of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may, in certain cases, amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life.

The decision to deport Mrs Carpenter, in this particular case, does not strike a fair balance between the competing interests, that is, on the one hand, the right of Mr Carpenter to respect for his family life, and, on the other hand, the maintenance of public order and public safety.

Although Mr Carpenter's spouse has infringed the immigration laws of the United Kingdom by not leaving the country prior to the expiry of her leave to remain as a visitor, her conduct, since her arrival in the United Kingdom in September 1994, has not been the subject of any other complaint that could give cause to fear that she might in the future constitute a danger to public order or public safety. Moreover, it is clear that Mr and Mrs Carpenter's marriage, which was celebrated in the United Kingdom in 1996, is genuine and that Mrs Carpenter continues to lead a true family life there, in particular by looking after her husband's children from a previous marriage. In those circumstances, the decision to deport Mrs Carpenter constitutes an infringement, which is not proportionate to the objective pursued.

The Court therefore concludes that the principle of freedom to provide services laid down in the EC Treaty, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, precludes a refusal, by the Member State of origin of a provider of services established in that Member State who provides services to recipients established in other Member States, of the right to reside in its territory to that provider's spouse, who is a national of a third country.

Family life, ability to send back at the border, visa

[Case C-459/99 of 25 July, MRAX v État Belge (Belgian State).]

The court reaffirms the importance of protecting the family life of nationals of the Member States to whom the community legislation on freedom of movement applies.

The Belgian circular of 28 August 1997 does not comply with that principle as regards nationals of non-Member countries married to Member State nationals.

The Mouvement contre le racisme, l'antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL (Movement to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia; "MRAX") applied to the Belgian Conseil d'État (Council of State) for annulment of a 1997 circular of the Ministers for the Interior and for Justice relating to obtaining a visa for the purpose of contracting a marriage in Belgium or of reuniting a family on the basis of a marriage contracted abroad.

MRAX maintains that the circular is incompatible with the Community directives on movement and residence within the Community.

The Belgian Council of State has asked the Court of Justice whether a Member State may adopt the following measures in relation to nationals of a non-member country married to a Community citizen:

send them back at the border when they seek to enter the Member State without being in possession of a valid identity document and, if necessary, a visa;

refuse to grant them a residence permit and issue an expulsion order against them if their status is irregular because:

they entered the Member State unlawfully; or

they entered it lawfully but have applied for issue of a residence permit after expiry of their visa.

The Council of State has also asked whether foreign nationals married to Community nationals are entitled to the procedural guarantees provided for by Community law where they are refused a residence permit or an expulsion order is made against them on the ground that they are not in possession of an identity document or a visa or their visa has expired.

In this judgment the Court rules on situations presenting a link to freedom of movement. The judgment concerns the rights regarding access to Member States' territory and granting of a residence permit enjoyed by nationals of non-member countries who are married to Community citizens making use of their freedom of movement as workers, freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services. Community legislation on freedom of movement for workers, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment cannot be applied to the situation of persons who have never exercised those freedoms.

Exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement can be founded only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

Ability to send back at the border

The Court begins by noting the importance, which the Community legislature has accorded to protecting the family life of Community citizens in order to eliminate obstacles to exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.

Nevertheless, under Community legislation, the Member States may demand an entry visa from members of the family of a Community citizen who are not nationals of a Member State. If they do not have a visa or a valid identity document, sending them back at the border does not appear to be precluded.

The Court points out, however, that the applicable directives state that the Member States are to accord to such persons every facility for obtaining any necessary visas. This means that a visa must be issued without delay and, as far as possible, at the place of entry into national territory.

In any event, where a national of a non-member country married to a Community citizen is able to prove his identity and the conjugal ties, to send him back at the border is disproportionate and therefore prohibited, provided that he does not represent a risk to the requirements of public policy, public security or public health.

Ability to refuse issue of a residence permit to a national of a non-member country who is married to a Community national and whose status is irregular

The Court finds that the right of residence of nationals of non-member countries married to Community citizens derives directly from rules of Community law irrespective of issue of a residence permit by a Member State.

However, a Member State may make issue of a residence permit conditional upon production of the document with which the person entered its territory. The competent national authorities may impose penalties for failure to comply with provisions concerning the control of foreign nationals so long as the penalties are proportionate.

Also, a Member State may take measures derogating from freedom of movement if grounds of public policy, public security or public health are involved, but they must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.

On the other hand, a decision refusing a residence permit, or ordering expulsion, based exclusively on a failure to comply with the legal formalities relating to the control of foreign nationals - such as entering a Member State without a visa - is a disproportionate measure and therefore contrary to the Community rules where the person concerned is able to furnish proof of his identity and of his conjugal ties with a Community national.

With regard to applications for a residence permit after a visa has expired, the Court observes that the Community provisions do not require the visa still to be valid in order for a residence permit to be issued. Furthermore, an order of expulsion from national territory on the sole ground that the visa has expired would constitute a penalty manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the breach of the national provisions concerning the control of foreign nationals.

Procedural guarantees

Community law provides a minimum procedural guarantee for persons to whom freedom of movement applies and their spouses where they are refused a residence permit or their expulsion is ordered before the issuance of a permit. The Court observes that the guarantee is complementary to the system of appeals to a court of law. The requirement for judicial review reflects a principle stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States which has been enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights

The Court accordingly holds that a foreign national married to a Member State national is entitled to the minimum procedural guarantees laid down by the Community legislation. If that entitlement were excluded in the absence of a valid identity document or visa, the guarantees would be rendered redundant.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism (2002)

The Council of Europe, which has a long history in developing measures to combat terrorism, believes that governments seeking to combat it must find effective counter-measures, but at the same time not lose sight of the need to respect fundamental human rights. With this in mind, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers has adopted on 11 July 2002 guidelines as recommendations both to member and non-member states.

The guidelines reaffirm states' obligation to protect everyone against terrorism, and reiterate the need to avoid arbitrariness. They also stress that all measures taken by states to combat terrorism must be lawful, and that torture must be prohibited. The framework set out in the guidelines concerns, in particular, the collecting and processing of personal data, measures which interfere with privacy, arrest, police custody and pre-trial detention, legal proceedings, extradition and compensation of victims.

For more information on these guidelines and how to order them, see the website: http://book.coe.int

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)

Visits by the CPT to various countries

All the reports of the CPT are available on the website http://www.cpt.coe.int

Denmark

The Danish government has requested the publication of the report of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on its visit to Denmark in January/February 2002 (CPT/Inf (2002) 18). The visit was carried out within the framework of the CPT’s programme of periodic visits for 2002; it was the Committee’s third visit to Denmark. The CPT visited a number of police stations, prisons and psychiatric establishments inter alia in Copenhagen, Horsens and Nykøbing Sjælland, as well as the Sandholm Foreigners Detention Centre. The Committee paid particular attention to the use of solitary confinement of remand prisoners by court order, measures taken to address inter-prisoner violence and intimidation and the conditions of detention of aliens deprived of their liberty. The CPT also examined, for the first time in Denmark, conditions and treatment in psychiatric institutions.

The Danish government is currently preparing its response to the issues raised by the Committee.

Georgia

On 25^th July 2002 the CPT published a report on a visit to Georgia (CPT/Inf (2002) 14). In May 2001 the Committee visited a number of civil and military detention centres and psychiatric facilities in the capital Tbilisi, and the towns of Kutaisi, Gori, Poti and Tskaltubo. Its recommendations deal with improving professional training for police officers, strengthening safeguards against the ill-treatment of people held in police custody, and the systematic investigation of complaints by detainees. The Georgian government, which requested the publication of the report, is preparing its response to the points raised by the Committee. That response will also be made public.

Malta

The Maltese Government recently made public the report of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on its visit to Malta in May 2001 (CPT/Inf (2002) 16 and 17), together with the Government's response. The visit was carried out within the framework of the CPT's programme of periodic visits for 2001; it was the Committee's third visit to Malta.

The CPT's delegation paid particular attention to the legal framework governing safeguards against ill-treatment by the police, the programme of reconstruction at Corradino Correctional Facility (the only prison in Malta), as well as the activities provided to prisoners, and the conditions prevailing in the forensic ward at Mount Carmel Hospital. Several recommendations have been made and the Maltese Government has provided the CPT with an interim rapport how to improve the conditions for prisoners, based on CPT’s recommendations.

Moldova

On 26 June 2002, the CPT issued a report which assesses the treatment of people held in police establishments, prisons and other places of detention in Moldova, as well as the response of the Moldavan government on the findings of the CPT (CPT/Inf (2002) 11 and 12).

The CPT's main concerns are the situation of people deprived of their liberty by the police as well as poor conditions in prisons; however, there have been notable improvements in the latter establishments.

The CPT's delegation received widespread allegations of physical ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty by operational police departments, mainly during interrogations. In their response, the Moldovan authorities indicate that police activities are under constant supervision and that every instance of abuse is severely sanctioned. Concerning the remand centres of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the CPT requests that people detained are guaranteed conditions, which respect the basic necessities of life (access to drinking water, sufficient food, adequate level of hygiene, etc.). The Moldovan authorities highlight their efforts in this field, but at the same time underline that due to the economic situation, it is not possible to grant the necessary financial resources.

The CPT welcomes the positive changes observed at Chişinău Prison No. 3 and in particular the removal of the shutters covering cell windows; as a result, there was better access to natural light and fresh air. In their response, the Moldovan authorities also set out the measures taken at Prison No. 2 and Colony No. 8 for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis in Bender and at Pruncul Prison Hospital, to implement the CPT's recommendations. Moreover, they indicate that, following a Government decision of 12 March 2002, the prison system has benefited from an increase in the provision of food and medication. Nevertheless, the supply of medication remains problematic.

The material conditions of detention of life-sentenced prisoners, who had recently been transferred to a special unit at Rezina Prison No. 17, had significantly improved. As recommended by the Committee, a new instruction aimed at defining the regime for such prisoners was to be drawn up.

Poland

On 23 May 2002, the CPT has published its report on the visit to Poland in May 2000, as well as the response of the Polish Government (CPT/Inf (2002) 9 en 10).

The report assesses the treatment of people held in police stations, prisons, psychiatric hospitals and centres for illegal aliens in Poland.

A number of persons interviewed by the CPT's delegation alleged that they had been physically ill-treated by the police. In their response, the Polish authorities indicate that they have reinforced the supervision of police activities and intensified human rights training of police officers.

At Przemyśl Prison, the CPT's delegation was inundated with allegations of ill-treatment of inmates by prison officers. The Polish authorities have subsequently imposed disciplinary sanctions on certain staff members and introduced measures to improve staff training and managerial control.

The CPT also expresses concern about the steady rise of the Polish prison population and recommends a range of measures to counter this trend. In their response, the Polish authorities refer to plans to send more prisoners to semi-open establishments and to provide 20,000 new prison places by the year 2012.

The CPT gained a generally positive impression of Starogard Gdański Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital, which offered a range of therapeutic options to patients. The Polish authorities indicate that the refurbishment programme underway at the hospital will be completed by 2004.

Turkey 1

The preliminary observations of the visit on 21-27 March 2002 made by the delegation of the CPT were published on 23th July 2002 (CPT/inf (2002) 13). Some progress in the treatment of prisoners is mentioned. However, the CPT stresses that there still are several issues of great concern and might find it necessary to return to Turkey in the near future.

Turkey 2

A delegation of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) carried out an ad hoc visit to Turkey from 1 to 6 September 2002. The visit focussed on the province of Diyarbakır in South-East Turkey and was designed to pursue in more depth questions already explored during an earlier ad hoc visit organised in March 2002.

The main purpose of the visit was to examine the implementation in practice of recent legal reforms concerning custody by law enforcement agencies; those reforms relate to such matters as access to a lawyer and notification of relatives. The delegation also reviewed the application of Article 3 (c) of Legislative Decree No. 430, under which prisoners who have to be questioned as part of the investigation of offences giving rise to the declaration of a state of emergency may be returned to the custody of law enforcement agencies. Further, the delegation assessed once again the conditions under which medical examinations of persons in police custody take place. No report has been published yet.

12^TH General Report on the CPT’s activities

On September the 3^rd, the CPT has published its 12^th General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2001 (CPT/Inf (2002) 15).

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 ECHR, expulsion on the grounds of national security

[Al Nashif; application no. 50963/99]

The court points out that only in exceptional cases family life can be broken. The applicant’s relationship with another woman did not create ‘exceptional circumstances’. The Court reminded that for an interference to be in ‘accordance with the law’ the legal basis must be accessible and foreseeable.

In a case concerning a Stateless person of Palestinian origin, Mr Al-Nashif, who was expelled from Bulgaria after living there with his family for almost seven years on grounds of national security, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on 20 June that the expulsion amounted to a violation of Article 8 on the respect for private and family life and to a violation of Article 13 on the effective right of appeal. The judges were unanimous in condemning Bulgaria for not granting the applicant any possibility to challenge the lawfulness of his detention prior to expulsion and therefore found that Article 5 (4) has been violated. Mr Al-Nashif and his wife, Ms Saleh, also a Stateless person of Palestinian origin, emigrated to Bulgaria in September 1992. His travel document was that of a Syrian Stateless person’s identity document, which he was able to get renewed while in Bulgaria. Two children were born during their stay in Bulgaria, in 1993 and 1994. The children became Bulgarian nationals. During his stay in Bulgaria, Mr Al-Nashif had a liaison with a Bulgarian woman with whom he contracted a Muslim religious marriage. However, he remained with his first wife and did not, at any time, request separation.

Between November 1998 and April 1999, he taught Islamic classes, whilst he was not authorised to do so. When the authorities learned of this, investigations were initiated and his permanent residence permit, obtained in February 1995, was revoked in April 1999 on the grounds that he posed a threat to the security or the interests of the Bulgarian State.

He was taken in to detention on 9 June 1999 and, without any right to effectively challenge his detention, he was deported to Syria on 4 July 1999. His wife, without any income, and no financial support, finally took the decision to leave Bulgarian with her two children on 29 June 2000. They initially went to Syria, but as the husband was not able to provide them with stable accommodation, they left for Jordan to the home of Ms Saleh’s parents. Mr Al-Nashif travelled to Jordan on a tourist visa, but was not allowed to stay and had to return to Syria. In finding that Bulgaria had violated Article 5(4), the Court criticised the fact that under Bulgarian law no judicial appeal lies against detention pending deportation in cases where the deportation order is issued on grounds of national security, which is incompatible with Article 5(4) of the Convention and its rationale, the protection of individuals against arbitrariness.

As for Article 8, the Bulgarian Government tried, in vain, to argue that the applicant lacked a true family life on the grounds of his liaison with a Bulgarian woman with whom he had a second religious marriage. The Court disagreed, pointing out that according to the ‘concept of a marital union is ipso jure part of that relationship (…) which subsequent events cannot break save in exceptional circumstances.’ The applicant’s relationship with another woman did not create such ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Where the seven European judges disagreed was whether there was interference with the applicant’s life and whether this was in ‘accordance with the law.’ The Court reminded that for an interference to be ‘in accordance with the law’ the legal basis must be ‘accessible’ and foreseeable’.

‘A rule’s effects are ‘foreseeable’ if it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable any individual to regulate his conduct.’ The Court stressed that there ‘must be a measure of legal protection in domestic law against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the rights safeguarded by the Convention.’ ‘Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference’ added the Court.

As for the condition that the legal basis be ‘accessible’, the Court ruled that the individual ‘must be able to challenge the executive’s assertion that national security is at stake.’ ‘While the executive’s assessment of what poses a threat to national security will naturally be of significant weight, the independent authority must be able to react in cases where invoking that concept has no reasonable basis in the facts or reveals an interpretation of ‘national security’ that is unlawful or contrary to common sense and arbitrary. Failing such safeguards, the police or other State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention’, added the Court.

Considering that the interference in the applicant’s right to family life does not meet the Convention requirements of lawfulness, the majority of four judges ruled that the Court was not required to determine whether the interference with the applicant’s family life pursued a legitimate aim and, if so whether it was proportionate to the aim pursued.

In concluding also a violation of Article 13, the Court criticised the fact that all appeals were rejected without examination on the grounds that the Aliens Ac stipulates that deportation decisions citing ‘national security’ as their ground need not state reasons and are not subject to appeal. Where an appeal against such an order is submitted to a court, it is not entitled to enquire whether genuine national security concerns are at stake and must reject it.

Article 8 ECHR, order to leave because of drug trafficking

[Amrollahi v. Denmark (application no. 56811/00)]

In assessing the present case, the European judges listed a series of criteria to determine whether Article 8 had been violated; the nature and seriousness of the offence committed: the time that had elapsed since the offence was committed and the applicant’s conduct during that period; the nationalities of the various persons who would be affected if the expulsion has been carried out; the effectiveness of the couple’s family life; the question of whether the spouse was aware of the offence committed when s/he entered into a family relationship with the applicant; the existence of children and their age; the seriousness of the difficulties encountered by the spouse in going to the applicant’s country of origin]

Davood Amrollahi is an Iranian citizen, born in 1966, and living in Denmark.

In 1986 he started his military training in Iran. It is not clear whether he participated directly in the war between Iran and Iraq, but, on 25 April 1987 he deserted. He initially fled to Turkey, went to Greece and then Denmark, where he arrived on 20 August 1989 and applied for asylum. At that time, all asylum-seekers from Iran - who, after deserting from the army, had left their home country before the armistice between Iran and Iraq in the summer of 1988 - were granted a residence permit. On 12 October 1990 the applicant was granted a residence and work permit and, on 25 August 1994, a permanent residence permit.

In 1992 the applicant met a Danish woman, A., with whom he cohabited. They had a daughter on 16 October 1996, married on 23 September 1997 and had a son, born on 20 April 2001. A., also has a daughter, born in 1989 from a previous relationship, who lives with them, and with whom the applicant has a very close relationship. All three children have been raised according to Danish traditions. It appears that the applicant’s family broke off all relations with him in 1987 following his desertion from the army. In Denmark the applicant had been making a living as the owner of a pizzeria until the end of 1996. Since May 2000 he had been receiving welfare benefits and vocational training. A. works in a retirement home.

On 1 October 1997 the applicant was found guilty of drug trafficking, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and expulsion from Denmark with a life-long ban on his return.

On 17 December 1998 the applicant was due to be released on parole. Since he did not consent to deportation or to leave the country voluntarily, he was detained as from that date in accordance with the Aliens Act with a view to being repatriated.

The immigration authorities found, on 13 January 1999, that the applicant would not risk persecution in Iran of a kind, which could constitute a basis for his remaining in Denmark. He appealed unsuccessfully. He was released from detention on 11 May 2000.

The applicant complained that, if deported, he would lose contact with his wife, children and step-daughter as they cannot be expected to follow him to Iran. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for family life).

The Court observed that drugs had a devastating effect on people’s lives and that it was understandable for the authorities to show great firmness to those who actively contributed to the spread of that scourge. Even if the applicant had not previously been convicted, that did not detract from the seriousness and gravity of such a crime.

However, the Court found nothing to suggest that the applicant had maintained strong links, if any, with Iran, while he had to be considered as having strong ties with Denmark. The applicant’s wife had never been to Iran, did not understand Farsi and was not a Muslim. Besides being married to an Iranian man, she had no ties with the country. Even if it were not impossible for the applicant’s wife and children to live in Iran, it would, nevertheless, cause them obvious and serious difficulties. In addition, the Court recalled that A.’s daughter from a previous relationship, who had lived with A. since her birth in 1989, refused to move to Iran. Taking this fact into account as well, A. could not, in the Court’s opinion, be expected to follow the applicant to Iran. There was no indication either that the applicant and his wife could obtain authorisation to live in any other country but Iran. Accordingly, as a consequence of the applicant’s permanent exclusion from Denmark, the family will be separated, since it was effectively impossible for them to continue their family life outside Denmark.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that the expulsion of the applicant to Iran would be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and that it was not required to apply Article 41 in this case.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

Austria

“Learn German or you’re out, Austria tells immigrants”. Foreigners in Austria will be forced to learn German or face deportation. Non-EU citizens who arrived in Austria after 1 January 1998 will be obliged to attend 100 hours of tuition on German language skills. Those immigrants who can prove they already have German language skills, and high-ranking managers and other professionals who stay for less than two years can be excused.

Participants will be obliged to pay half of the estimated € 350 costs of the course. The state’s contribution drops to a quarter after 18 months for foreigners who do not comply with the regulations, and to zero after two years. After three years, anyone who has not completed the course will be fined and after four years of non-compliance their residence permit will be withdrawn.

Permits for seasonal employment will be extended to all branches, even those without seasonal employment. However, the first permit will be limited to six months, with the possibility of an immediate extension to a further six months. After one year of employment the person holding the permit has to leave Austria for two months, but may return again and be granted a new seasonal permit for two times six months and so forth. Thus a new type of regular employment is set up, with a group of immigrants who have no rights such as family reunification or children’s allowance etc. There will be a monthly maximum of 8000 seasonal permits. The Minister for Economy and Employment will, however, be allowed to increase the number of permits to up to 12000 for a certain month. In this case the quota for the next month will have to be reduced accordingly.

New directive will make hundreds of persons homeless

Hundreds of asylum seekers are being thrown out of reception centres onto the streets.

Austrian NGOs are very concerned about a directive that excludes a lot of asylum-seekers from federal care and will lead to mass-homelessness within the next weeks. NGOs criticise the measure as not only inhuman, but warn that in addition it will prevent asylum-seekers from having access to a fair asylum-procedure.

The Austrian Ministry of Interior has released a directive, that came into force on 1/10/02, that deprives asylum-seekers of federal care. According to this directive asylum-seekers from the following countries of origin will be excluded form federal care: European Economic Area Member-States, Switzerland, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New-Zealand; Candidate countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta. A temporary exception is only possible in case of (severe) illness.

After a negative first instance decision asylum-seekers from the following countries of origin are not entitled to federal care: asylum-seekers from Russia, Armenia, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Nigeria. Exception is foreseen for minority Serbs from Kosovo, Chechen, Kurds from Turkey only.

No federal care is granted to asylum-seekers who are unlikely to be granted asylum because of their country of origin. The directive refers to countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, FR Yugoslavia (excluding Serbs from Kosovo), Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Russia. They may be granted federal care if for special reasons the granting of federal care is necessary for the efficiency of the asylum-procedure or by reason of belonging to a vulnerable group. The same applies to all asylum-seekers (except Afghanistan and Iraq) if the person is not able to prove his/her identity with a document unless there are indications for the credibility of the asylum-seekers statement. For asylum-seekers from Nigeria these exceptions do not apply.

NGOs believe the new measures are not only inhuman but will prevent asylum seekers having access to fair asylum procedures. If an asylum application lacks a registered address, the application will be ceased before the asylum interview has taken place. If federal care and accommodation is terminated after the interview with the asylum office and the applicant has no registered address, the decision of the first instance will be posted at the asylum authority office. This notification risks becoming the final decision since if the notification is posted at the asylum authority, asylum-seekers may not become aware of the negative decision in time to prepare an appeal (appeals have to be lodged within 14 days of notification of a negative decision).

Asylum being granted to a baby and a woman who fear genital excision

For the first time asylum is being granted to a woman who fled her country to avoid genital excision (also called female genital mutilation). In its decision of 21 March 2002, the Asylum Senate (an independent equivalent of a court competent to examine appeals lodged by asylum-seekers) concluded that the woman, from the 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.

On 5 June 2002, another person, a baby represented by her mother, has been granted asylum because of a well founded fear of persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group, namely Ethiopian women who are exposed to the risk of having to undergo female excision. The Asylum Senate also took into account that the baby is a member of the Oromo ethnic minority in Ethiopia, some of whose members want independence. The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) is considered as a terrorist group by the Ethiopian Government and the police arbitrarily arrest and torture ethnic Oromos simply because of their origin, on the assumption that they could have some kind of link with the OLF. As in the above-mentioned case, the Asylum Senate did not consider that the applicant could benefit from sufficient protection of the State. Although equal rights for men and women are inscribed in the country’s constitution, practice and reality paint a different picture and women are still politically and socially discriminated against. The practice of FGM continues in many parts of the country and no legal sanctions have so far been imposed on its authors.

The Asylum Senate examined the question of whether the applicant disposed of an internal flight alternative and was satisfied that she did not. Already exposed to possible persecution as a member of the Oromo minority, her situation is aggravated by the fact that she was born to a mother raped by a policeman.

The possibility of being able to start and lead a new life in another region of Ethiopia, without family or tribal links is virtually excluded, all the more given the applicant’s age and that of her mother, as well as the prevailing disadvantageous social situation of women in Ethiopia.

Canada

The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) became law on June 28, 2002. This legislation replaces the former 25-year-old Immigration Act. It recognizes the many contributions that immigrants and refugees make to Canada; encourages workers with flexible skills to choose Canada; and helps families reunite more quickly. IRPA is also tough on those who pose a threat to Canadian security while continuing Canada's tradition of providing a safe haven to people who need protection.

The new law can be found at: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/C-11_4.pdf

Cyprus

Pregnant Nigerian given temporary stay

In Cyprus, a seven-months pregnant Nigerian student was released from prison and given temporary stay in Nicosia after she applied for asylum fearing death by stoning if returned to Nigeria for having a child out of wedlock. The young woman flew to Ireland when her student visa expired, using false documents, in the belief that if her child were born there she would get automatic Irish citizenship. Under normal circumstances the Nigerian would be deported, but the Cypriot authorities took into consideration the fact that she might face the death penalty if returned to Nigeria and said deportation was never an ‘option’.

Source: AFP, Nicosia, 21 August 2002 at www.lafeminite.com.

Denmark

Afghans will no longer be granted automatic asylum

On 20 June, the Danish Government announced that Afghan asylum seekers would no longer be granted asylum automatically, but that each case will be examined individually. The suspended cases of some 1600 Afghans will now be re-opened and processing will be resumed. Afghan asylum seekers have been given until 1^st November 2002 to accept a voluntary programme of repatriation. Acceptance implies withdrawal of their asylum claims. Afghans who have already been refused refugee status are also entitled to apply. The programme consists of a grant of 18000 Dkr (2418 Euros) per adult and 6000 Dkr (806 euros) per child, as well as the payment of all shipping and transportation costs to the home country. The latter includes air tickets and freight paid for two cubic metres of furnishing and household items per adult and one cubic metre per child.

Iraqis will not be sent back by force

A hunger strike by Iraqi asylum-seekers has come to an end after the Danish authorities informed the group that Denmark intended to follow the guidelines of the UNHCR and that they would not be repatriated by force. These rejected asylum seekers are from the part of Iraq under the control of Baghdad.

Germany

New German law

On June 20 the President of Germany signed into law the new German immigration law. The new German Aliens law contains new regulations for immigration, which will replace the previous ones.

Under the new law "to limit and manage immigration," highly qualified foreigners can receive permanent residence permits beginning January 1, 2003. Other educated foreigners could receive temporary permits and foreigners graduating from German universities could receive one-year work permits after graduation. Part of the bill refers to integration, but the main subject is good knowledge of the German language. Positive regulations include that refugees who are subjected to non-state persecution and gender specific prosecution cannot be deported, and the general establishment of commissions working on particularly hard cases. Negative regulations concern children to be reunited with their parents: the Christian Democrats insisted on fixing the age at 12 years.

Furthermore the former status of Duldung (tolerated status) referring to rejected refugees who cannot return to their home country will be abolished. There are only unclear proposals on papers replacing it. The foreigners’ authorities who have always been reluctant to decide in not clearly defined cases will have to decide according to their discretion. This means there is the risk that thousands of refugees will be living illegally in Germany. The Bill expressly states that decisions going further than international law may not be taken, i.e. liberal decisions are excluded.

Italy

New anti-immigration measures

On 11 July the Italian Senate passed a series of anti-immigration measures. The bill stipulates that non-EU foreigners will only be able to live Italy if they have employment before entering, and will receive residency permit only for the duration of the employment contract (maximum of two years). Immigrants will only be allowed to bring their children if under 18. The government will make foreigners provide fingerprints for identification purposes, while those immigrants who return to the country after being expelled will be treated as if they have committed a crime. Human smugglers will be liable to between four and twelve years of imprisonment.

Limited amnesty for foreigners working illegally

A limited amnesty will be given to foreigners who are working illegally as maids or are taking care of the elderly. The main conditions are that their illegal workers must have been in Italy when the new Aliens Act received final parliamentary approval last July and they must pay, retroactively, pension contributions. These employers have 60 days, as from September, to pay the pension contributions.

The Netherlands

Extradition depends on risk for death penalty in Turkey

On 25 June, a court in Amsterdam decided to prolong the detention of Ms Kesbir, member of the presidential council of the outlawed Kurdish Workers’ Party or PKK, in view of her possible extradition. Last September she applied for asylum in the Netherlands, but the application was turned down since the exclusion clauses of article 1F were applicable. Ankara, who has requested her extradition, has been given six weeks to specify the crimes, which she is suspected of having committed. Ms Kesbir will not be extradited if she mmight face the death penalty, which will be the case if she will be convicted for leading a terrorist network.

Rejected Iraqi asylum seekers from central Iraq

Rejected Iraqi asylum seekers from central Iraq may stay for the time being, since the Dutch government is at the moment not able to send back asylum seekers from central Iraq to Northern Iraq, which is a zone protected by the UN.

End of cash payments for rejected asylum- seeking children

Cash payments to rejected asylum-seeking children will end on 15 September 2002. The measure is expected to affect some 500 rejected asylum-seekers who were under the age of 18 when they submitted their claim for protection. Children who reached the age of 18 during the asylum procedure used to receive a daily financial allowance of 16.64 Euros to enable them to pay for their rented accommodation (because most young asylum seekers do not live in a reception centre). Moreover, they received financial assistance for education and health insurance.

In ending financial assistance to these young rejected asylum-seekers, the Ministry of Justice is hoping that they will decide to return to their home country. NGOs in support of these asylum-seekers fear that they would, instead, go into hiding, become homeless or turn to crime. The situation can be especially distressful for teenage mothers amongst them.

Norway

Asylum seekers will no longer receive welfare benefits

From 1^st June 2002, asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of their appeal will no longer receive welfare benefits. Those awaiting the outcome of their appeal in a transit centre, which provides meals will lose all financial support. In centres where they do their own cooking, the amount received has been reduced form 2.700 to 1.565 Nkr. The Government is hoping that the new measures will incite rejected asylum seekers to leave Norway.

Portugal

New aliens bill receives parliamentary approval

On 4 July, the new Aliens Bill aimed at limiting the entry of foreign workers to the needs of the Portuguese economy received parliamentary approval. Under the new law, the Government will be able to fix an annual quota of third-country immigrants allowed to enter the country, after examining labour market surveys. Priority will be granted to skilled labour. The new law will replace the one passed in January 2001 that enabled irregular migrants to apply for a residence work if they could provide proof of employment. This has led to a more than doubling of Portugal’s foreign population.

Romania

Amendment to the Law on the Status of Foreign Nationals

On 12 September the Romanian Senate approved an amendment to the Law on the Status of Foreign Nationals prohibiting the entry to Romania of people charged with, or suspected of, war crimes or "crimes against peace." The amendment closes the

door on the extradition to Romania of former Nazis.

Co-operation between France and Romania

The premier of Romania has agreed that Romanians who commit crimes in France could have their assets confiscated in Romania. A draft law that would allow this will be submitted to parliament and an agreement is to be signed in Paris in October. France will help Romania improve border controls and will support a social-integration program for the Romany minority. The French minister for combating poverty and exclusion, is to work with Romanian officials to set up a system of French and Romanian non-governmental organizations that would prepare young Romanian Roma in France for voluntary return home. The French Interior Minister and the Romanian Prime Minister signed three agreements on fighting organized crime and illegal immigration.

On 30-31th August, a Romanian and French Minister signed a bi-lateral agreement to step up efforts to prevent “undesirable Romanians” (those found begging, prostitutes, criminal gangs etc.) from taking advantage of free visa travel to reside and operate illegally in France. French police official will be posted in Romania to assist local authorities in the work of border controls.

Sierra Leone is now considered safe for repatriations

On 18 September, the Ministry of Justice informed that the Minister for aliens Affairs and Integration, Hilbrand Nawijn, had sent a letter to the Lower Chamber, announcing that the situation in Sierra Leone had improved enough to be considered safe to send back rejected asylum seekers. The evaluation was based on a Note on Sierra Leone, prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and dated 8 July 2002.

Russian Federation

New Aliens Law

On 10 July, the Russian Federation Council approved the new Aliens Bill, which brings together numerous regulations concerning foreigners in a single legislative text of 55 pages. The Bill was subsequently transmitted to President Putin for signing and will become law three months after being published in the country’s official journal. The new law will replace the 1981 Aliens Act as well as numerous by-laws and regulations.

Under the terms of the Bill, the Federal Government will determine an annual quota of foreigners allowed into the country on a temporary basis. The quota will exclude persons wishing to invest in Russia, the spouse of Russians or foreigners with Russian dependants. The annual quota will be decided after consulting the various regions to find out their needs for foreign manpower. Local employers will inform the regional authorities of such needs. There is fear that recruitment of foreign workers could come up against bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, an employer wanting to hire a foreigner must first obtain the permission of the Federal Migration Service who will then ask the opinion of the Ministry of Labour. The application will be approved only if the latter confirms that no Russian national is available for the vacancy in question.

Besides, an employer wishing to hire a foreigner from abroad will have to deposit a sum as guarantee, the amount of which will have to be enough to cover the cost of the foreigner’s air fare back to his/her home country. The guarantee will be used if the foreigner has to be deported.

A database will be set up to keep track of all foreigners in the country and any foreigner entering the country will have to fill in a form upon arrival and must surrender it when leaving.

There will be two kinds of residence permits, one for temporary stay and valid for three years and the other, a permanent one, will be valid for five years, renewable an unlimited number of times. A temporary residence permit is valid only for a certain region where the holder resides and works. S/he is not entitled to move to another one.

A residence permit may be revoked under certain conditions, such as if the holder is a drug addict or is infected with the AIDS virus or other ‘dangerous diseases’, to be decided by the Federal Government.

Regulations governing residence permits are different for foreign diplomats, journalists and officials working in internationals, all of whom will, as at present, register themselves at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States who have entered the Russian Federation without a visa, will have, under the terms of Article 37 of the Bill, 60 days after the law comes into force to apply to a local police office for a migration card (which registers their presence in Russia) and only 90 days afterwards to apply for a residence permit. Those who do not apply for a migration card will be considered illegal immigrants 90 days after the new law became into force.

Spain

Ombudsman reports on grave violations

The Ombudsman has made several observations concerning the legal guarantees to which foreigners arriving illegally on the Canary Islands are entitled. It states that irregular migrants are not brought before a judge as is required by law. Judges do not hold an audience before deciding to order their detention and their subsequently deportation. The rulings are all almost identical. The individual circumstances are not taken into account, since each ruling gives the same reasons for detention and expulsion. Also the legal aid is criticised by the Ombudsman. In the cases examined, irregular migrants were entitled to meet with a lawyer for between one and a half minute to five minutes, which is not even enough to read out to the migrant concerned the text of the decision ordering the detention and expulsion. The rate paid to a lawyer assigned to provide legal aid to irregular migrants is 72.12 Euros. The Ombudsman pointed to one lawyer who visited the detention centre on 23 March 2002 and was able to meet with 120 persons, given the short time spend with his ‘clients’, and thus earned no less than 8.654 Euros.

UN committee on the Rights of the Child expresses concern about the treatment of minors

The UN committee on rights of child has expressed its concern about the way unaccompanied foreign (mostly Moroccan) children are treated in Spain, especially in Ceuta and Melilla. This was stated in its Concluding Observations adopted on 7 June 2002. See also: http://www.hrw.org/un/crc-spain.pdf

The Committee referred to reports of

-ill-treatment of children by police during forced expulsion to the country of origin, where, in some cases they were deported without access to legal assistance and interpretation;

-failure to provide for these children the temporary legal residency status to which they are entitled under the law because the Department of Social Welfare, as their legal guardian, did not apply;

-overcrowding and bad conditions of residential centres and cases of ill-treatment by residential staff of other children;

-denial of access to health care and education, although guaranteed by law;

-summary expulsions of children without controlling that they are effectively returned to family or social welfare agencies in their country of origin.

The UN committee recommends to improve the above-mentioned abuses and to provide the enclaves with more financial and human resources support for the necessary support of the children. Furthermore, the UN Committee expresses its concern at the delays in the procedure for family reunification of Convention Refugees, in particular for issuances of the necessary visas and travel documents and called on the Spanish authorities to implement the right of family reunion in a positive, humane and expeditious manner.

The Observations also note with concern the practice of female genital mutilation being practiced in Spain on girls of Sub-Saharan origin and urges Madrid to carry out a study on the extent of the problem and take measures to prohibit this practice, including the organisation of an information and awareness campaign. The UN committee also considered that more attention has to be given to the high rate of school drop out. On the other hand, Spain was praised for its great progress and achievements, which it has been made in the protection and promotion of the rights of the child and welcomed the creation of a post of Assistant to the Spanish Ombudsman in charge of issues relating to children.

The Spanish authorities have reacted angrily on the report, stating it was not based on objective facts. They mentioned that the number of foreign unaccompanied children has risen spectacularly and that some of the children were, at times, responsible for violent situations. Furthermore, they stressed that the UN report was based on those previously drawn up by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, whose results were true, but the situation since then have been corrected in the last four years. The UN committee is invited to visit the enclaves to see what the situation is really like.

Ruling of the High Administrative Court of Cantabria

In a recent ruling, it is stated by the Court that the authorities had acted unlawfully in their refusal to grant a work and a residence permit to an immigrant form Eastern Europe merely because he was once taken into custody by the police. Only a conviction can constitute sufficient ground to deny him residence in Spain.

Sweden

Paedophiles prey on asylum-seeking children

The daily ‘Dagen Nyheter’ has reported on 5 September 2002 that a 39-year old man who used to work in a reception centre for asylum-seekers in Gothenburg had been arrested and charged with sexually abusing asylum-seeking children. He is also accused of having facilitated contacts between these children and six other paedophiles who have also been placed under arrest.

According to testimonies collected, the paedophiles enticed their victims with money and drugs. The police have identified four victims, all underage children during the period when the sexual assaults allegedly took place. The youngest is now only 10 years old. The police have been investigating possible paedophile involvement in the disappearance of several children who were registered in the reception centre.

Switzerland

Kosovar refugees returning home may face the invoking of their refugee status

[EMARK 2002/8, See also: http://www.ark-cra.ch/emark/d/index.htm]

A Kosovo-Albanian refugee visited Kosovo several times and even stayed there for several weeks. The Swiss authorities decided to withdraw his asylum with the following reasoning:

- Kosovar refugees returning to Kosovo do not voluntarily re-avail themselves of the protection of the Yugoslav government.

- The situation in Kosovo has not dramatically improved and is not stable yet and there is no ground to generally revoke the asylum status in the sense of Art. 1 C (1) Geneva Convention for refugees from Kosovo.

- But, if the behaviour of the individual clearly indicates that such protection of the KFOR and UNMIK is subjectively estimated as sufficient and efficient, the Swiss authorities revoke asylum. Although the Geneva Convention clearly mentions “country of his nationality”, the SAAC in an “up-to-date” interpretation decides that also a United Nations protection-force like KFOR or UNMIK can guarantee such protection. In these circumstances the protection of Switzerland is not needed any more.

New Asylum Procedure

In its endeavour to speed up the procedure, the Federal Office for Refugees established additional procedure units at the four entry-registration centres. These units are operational since 1 August 02 and mainly treat clear cases (among them also manifestly unfounded or inadmissible asylum claims).

Refugee office may take two years to apply ‘accelerated procedure’

In a decision made public on 17 September, the Refugee Appeal Board (CRA) turned down the application lodged by a Nepalese asylum-seeker who complained that the ‘accelerated procedure’ ought not to have been applied in his case since the Federal Refugee Office (ODR) had taken almost two years to reach its decision. Under the ‘accelerated procedure’ a decision is made on whether or not an asylum application is admissible. Under the present asylum law, the ODR has 20 days to decide.

The Nepalese man arrived in Switzerland more than two years ago without any documents to provide his identity or travel itinerary. He was, moreover unable to provide the ODR with a plausible explanation.

However, as a result of bureaucratic delays, he had to wait almost two years to be notified of the decision to reject his application as inadmissible.

Turkey

A new law regarding human smuggling and trafficking has passed the Turkish parliament.

On the 3^rd of August 2002 a new law has passed in the Turkish parliament regarding human smuggling and trafficking. The articles 201/a and 201/b have been added to the Turkish Penal Code. These articles contain the following (source: www.abgs.gov.tr):

Article 201/a.— The smuggling of migrants is defined as helping individuals who are citizens of a foreign state or who are stateless or who have not been allowed to reside permanently in Turkey, to enter or stay in Turkey illegally or helping such individuals or Turkish citizens to leave the country illegally, with the intention of directly or indirectly obtaining material gain.

The perpetrators of the crime of migrant smuggling and those individuals, while not having participated in such a crime, who have assisted illegal migrants that have been previously brought into or have entered the country to leave the country illegally or to make possible their stay in the country, even though this is not in compliance with the legal conditions, and have prepared or provided false identification or travel documents for this purpose or have attempted any of these acts, even when these acts constitute a different crime, shall be sentenced to an additional heavy imprisonment from two to five years and a heavy fine of not less than one billion liras. Vehicles used in the crime and material gains made as a result shall be confiscated.

The penalties envisaged for the crimes listed in the paragraphs above shall be increased by half if the lives or bodily integrities of illegal migrants have been endangered or if they have been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and shall be increased by twofold if the action has resulted in death.

If the crimes listed in the paragraphs above are committed as an organization, the penalties foreseen for the perpetrators shall be doubled.

Article 201/b.— Those who provide, kidnap, take or transfer from one place to another and house individuals with the intention of making them work or serve by force, subject them to slavery or similar treatment, threaten, pressure, use force or coercion to persuade them to give up their bodily organs, use undue influence, secure their consent by deception or by exploiting the desperation of such individuals shall be sentenced to five to ten years of heavy imprisonment and a heavy fine of not less than one billion liras.

If the actions that constitute a crime are attempted with the intentions described in the first paragraph, the victim is assumed not to have given his/her consent.

If children below the age of eighteen are procured, kidnapped, taken or transferred from one place to another or housed with the intentions specified in paragraph one, even when no intermediary actions relating to the crime are committed, the penalties foreseen in paragraph one shall still be applied to the perpetrator.

If the crimes listed in the paragraphs above are committed as an organization, the penalties foreseen for the perpetrators shall be doubled.”

United Kingdom

Home office memorandum list conditions under which rejected asylum-seekers will be allowed to stay

In an unprecedented move, the Home Office has outlined the conditions under which rejected asylum seekers will be allowed to remain in the country, even if they have already been issued with an expulsion order.

These conditions were specified in a Home Office memorandum sent to the parliamentary committee on internal affairs of the House of Commons, before it began on 17 September to hear evidence about the breakdown in the asylum system.

‘We will not normally seek to remove a family group where there are children who have spent in excess of seven years in the UK, or anyone who has been continuously resident here fore more than 14 years’, says the Home Office memorandum. ‘Similarly, marriage or a relationship akin to marriage may be a reason to allow someone who does not meet the strict conditions under the Immigration Rules to remain in the United Kingdom.’ ‘The health of the person concerned, including whether or not he or she is fit to travel, will also be a consideration.’

High court ruling implies an applicant may be removed while the appeal is pending

A High Court judge has overturned as unlawful Home Secretary David Blunketts decision to deport an asylum seeking Afghan family to Germany. The Refugee Council believes that the decision has implications for plans in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to remove the right to suspensive appeals from asylum applicants whose cases the Home Office has certified as ‘clearly unfounded. This would mean that an applicant could be removed from the UK even if an appeal is pending. It is clear now that the Government must amend the Bill and give all asylum seekers an absolute right to appeal in this country, said a Refugee Council spokeswoman. Find out more, http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/sept2002/relea082.htm

New Extradition bill is put into effect

On 27 June the UK government published its Extradition Bill to put into effect the EU Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures. The Extradition Bill is aimed at simplifying and modernising the UK's extradition process. The safeguards for extradition to EU member states include an extradition hearing before a British District Judge with the right of appeal to the High Court and in limited circumstances an appeal to the House of Lords. The proposal has been criticised as opening up to dangerous abuses. See also website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/extraditionbill/documents.htm

Asylum-seekers’ right to work has ended

On 23 July, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Home Office announced that asylum-seekers would no longer be allowed to work while their applications are being processed. This decision has been expected for some time since France has made known a number of occasions that the Red Cross reception centre in Sangatte would not been closed down unless the British Government suppressed the pull factors, in particular the right to work in the UK after waiting six months.

Government start sending back Afghans

From 12 July the government started sending back rejected Afghan asylum seekers to Afghanistan after seven years in which nobody has been returned. The immigration minister Beverley Hughes said that the situation in Afghanistan had improved considerably and the government believed that progress would be sustained. Afghans will be offered money for those who choose to go home voluntarily. Individuals will be offered £600 and families £2500.

UK authorities win challenge on Roma rights

A high court judge yesterday threw out a challenge by human rights campaigners to declare that British immigration checks introduced at Prague airport were discriminatory against Czeck Roma people trying to claim asylum in the UK. The pre-clearance checks, which stopped mainly Czeck Roma people boarding flights to the UK to claim asylum, were considered legal under international law and were ‘no more or less objectionable’ than a visa control system. The screening at Prague airport was introduced in July 2001 and immigration officials are considering extending it to other eastern European airports if it proves a success. The high court was told that the home secretary, David Blunkett, had accepted that the vast majority of asylum applicants from Czech Republic were Roma people and yet there were no safeguards to ensure there was no racial stereotyping or profiling by the immigration staff. Liberty, the Human Rights Group who brought the case to Court, argued that there was a strong inference that there was discrimination.

But the court ruled that the 1951 Geneva Convention did not prevent Mr Blunkettt ‘from taking steps to prevent a potential refugee from approaching the border in order to be in a position to claim asylum, or making it more difficult for them to do so.

Liberty has immediately lodged an appeal.

Some 800 asylum applications were received from Czeck nationals between May and July this year and on previous form they will nearly all be rejected. There is evidence that the airport controls have simply led to Czech Roma driving rather than flying across Europe to reach Britain.

‘Fallen women’ from rural India recognized as a social group’

The old fashioned term, ‘Fallen women’, has been resurrected by an immigration appeal adjudicator to describe a ‘social group’ within the context of the landmark decision in Shah and Islam. Women who have committed adultery have been identified as a particular social group in the light of the social cultural and religious mores in rural India.

Usefully, the tribunal also found the woman could not live in another part of India because she would be destitute, without accommodation, without housing and no one to turn to. The appeal (Balvir Kaur and SSHD UKIAT03387 2 August 2002) was allowed but the tribunal described the circumstances as ‘exceptional’.

Her case was that she had committed adultery while in the UK resulting in the birth of her child, Karan. She is from a simple rural background. If she returned to her home area she would be ostracised by the community, and more to the point, would be at risk from her father and family members. She would not be able to look to the Indian authorities for protection as they rarely involved themselves in domestic disputes and, in any event, her position would be aggravated by the fact the police would be even less inclined to protect her because her husband was a suspected terrorist. Although India is a very large country, it would not be possible to expect her to relocate because she would be returned to a situation where she would be destitute. Both she and her son would suffer unduly.

The tribunal accepted the adjudicator’s findings that the political background of her husband was not a relevant factor due to a change of circumstances in India but accepted there were considerable risks to the woman if she were returned. She was ill educated and from a rural background where traditional values are at their strongest. She would be ostracised by her husband’s family and probably by her own family. The tribunal accepted objective evidence on the perceived role of women and their relationships with their husbands and were satisfied there was a real risk that she would face reprisals from her husband.

On the issue of state protection the SSHD submitted that the Indian criminal courts were open to all and would provide protection. In general terms the Tribunal accepted this but looking at the specific situation faced by the woman in rural area of the Punjab where wife beating was a problem; there was domestic violence in the context of dowry disputes; police were reluctant to intervene in family disputes and crime may be ignored if the perpetrators were influential.

Asylum granted to homosexuals from Zimbabwe

On 5 July, the Court of Appeal upheld the application of two Zimbabwean asylum-seekers who claimed that they feared persecution on account of their homosexuality. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, harbours a deep dislike and antipathy towards homosexuals and has, on a number of occasions, made rather insulting remarks against them, comparing them once to ‘dogs’.

The Court of Appeal nevertheless turned down the application of a third Zimbabwean who also claimed to be a homosexual. The Court did not consider his claim to be credible.

Immigration officials denied entrance because of age difference

British immigration officials have denied entry to a 22-year old Moroccan on the grounds that they do not believe that he would really live together with his newly wedded 60-year old spouse, Sylvia.

Sylvia met her future husband in an internet chat-room last January. She subsequently ended her 38-year old marriage and left Rabat in ma to exchange marriage vows for the second time.

It is rather unlikely that British immigration official would have adopted the same attitude if it were Sylvia’s husband who divorced her in order to marry a 22-year old Moroccan woman.

ELENA

ELENA is organising an International Course on the Application of Article 1C and 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the status of Refugees to take place on 17-19 January 2003 in Korsør, Denmark. The closing date for registration is 22 November 2002. All interested legal counsellors and lawyers are advised to register early to avoid disappointment. For more information please contact Geri McKenna at: gmckenna@ecre.org

PRESIDENCIES OF THE EU

The Danish Presidency

The Danish Presidency (July-December) is seeing progress in the negotiations of the various legislative proposals regarding asylum and migration. Denmark has a reservation on the European provisions in this field, which in practice means that Denmark has no right to vote on these proposals and that once adopted they won’t be applicable in this country.

The priorities of the Danish Presidency in this area include:

Refugee definition and complementary forms of protection: The Danish Presidency would like to obtain political agreement on the qualifications part of this Directive so that negotiations on the set of rights recognised to both categories of persons in need of international protection can be dealt with under the Greek Presidency (January – June 2003).

Dublin II: The Presidency is seeking to obtain compromise agreement on the controversial issues in this Regulation, namely, the criteria for the responsibility of examining an asylum request among EU Member States, and the humanitarian clause, allowing members of the same family to remain together during the asylum procedure. If agreement is found during this Presidency, negotiations on the rest of the provisions (mechanisms) could continue, so that formal adoption could take place during the Greek Presidency.

Family reunification: The Presidency is not very optimistic regarding the possibility of obtaining political agreement on this proposal before the end of its Presidency. While progress has been achieved in the negotiations of this 3^rd proposal presented by the Commission, divergence still remain on several matters, such as the lift of some requirements for the family reunification of refugees, the standstill clause and the criteria for the withdrawal of the status.

Long term residence: While negotiations have moved forward on this proposal, obstacles still remain for agreement, which include whether refugees should be given access to this Directive, freedom of movement, number of years required before access to long term residence is allowed, and integration requirements (language, etc) that the person would need to fulfil in order to obtain a long term residence status.

In relation to the fight against illegal immigration (a follow-up to the Sevilla Summit), the Danish Presidency is confident that during its Presidency a Programme for the Return of “illegal residents” (with general scope) and a Programme for the Return to Afghanistan will be adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in November.

However, the highest priority for the Presidency is enlargement of the EU. It is expected that the Heads of State or Government meeting at the Extraordinary European Council on 24-25 October will give a green light to the accession of 10 new countries, although it is expected that a monitoring mechanism for the implementation of JHA matters (including asylum/migration) will be in place between then and the moment of formal accession (after the entry into force of the accession protocols).

Information on the Danish Presidency, including the calendar and agendas for Council meetings can be found at: http://www.eu2002.dk/main/

The forthcoming Greek Presidency

Greece is already starting its preparations to assume the Presidency of the EU in January 2003. Its priorities in the field of asylum/migration will very much depend on the achievements that can be obtained during the Danish Presidency. In any case it is expected that during the Greek Presidency negotiations will continue on all the proposals currently being examined by the Danish Presidency.

Depending on progress on these open files, the Greek Presidency will also see the negotiations on the Asylum Procedures Directive. The Commission’s revised proposal of June 2002 will be officially presented to the JHA Council on 14-15 October. At this stage, bilateral consultations have started with Member States to identify controversial issues. These include: detention provisions, the safe third country concept, the scope of application, and border procedures.

Council of the European Union

Informal JHA Council 13-14 September

Member States discussed the definition of a refugee (including persecution by non-State agents). On the Other hand, although all agree to add the notion of subsidiary protection, the Member States hold different positions on the grounds and the rights attached to this status, and do not all wish to harmonise these rights. Ministers discussed at length with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, on the subject of the returns of Afghans. This first and only debate of the morning also provided an opportunity to begin discussions on a European returns policy. Ministers believe both subjects are linked. Ministers also discussed with Ruud Lubbers the establishment of a list of countries that are more or less safe and from which nationals are unlikely to seek protection in Europe by asking for refugee status.

The JHA Council on 14-15 October

This JHA Council is expected to discuss a number of issues:

- Open debate on amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status and on a proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies or other purposes

- Follow-up to the plan for the management of the external borders and the plan for fight against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings

Readmission agreements

-Proposal for a Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member States responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national

- Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection

- Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in Member States

- Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents

- Integration of third country nationals

- Strengthening of the procedures for passport control at the Schengen area entry points

- Applications for asylum from citizens from the EU-candidate countries

- List of Safe Third Countries

European Commission

Community Returns Policy

The Commission held a hearing on this matter in mid-July, based on the Green Paper that it had previously presented. On the basis of the comments to the Green Paper and the outcomes of the hearing, the Commission intends to adopt a Communication on a Community Returns Policy in mid-October, focusing on the “operational measures” leading to cooperation among Member States. On the basis of the Communication, the JHA Council is expected to adopt a Programme for the Return of “illegal residents” at its meeting on 28-29 November.

European Parliament

Evans Report on "Asylum: common procedure and internal security" rejected

On 24 September, the European Parliament rejected by a very narrow margin a report calling on Member States and the Commission not to over-use the security pretext for refusing requests for asylum. The report was rejected by the plenary on Tuesday by 243 against, 232 in favour and 42 abstentions, although it had been approved by the committee on freedoms in early July by 27 to 17. The Evans report urged MEPs to call on the Commission and on Member States to interpret exclusion clauses "restrictively and with caution" according to the interpretation described in the Geneva Convention to ensure that examination of exclusion clauses do not become the rule in processing requests for asylum and that, if they are examined, that this is not done in the context of accelerated procedure. The report also called for security measures to be refused if they, in principle, entailed the detention of asylum seekers and to reaffirm the EU's policy by opposing extradition towards countries where extradited persons could be faced with the death penalty. The Evans report finally called on the Commission to study as soon as possible the status of persons excluded from the protection regimes but who cannot be expelled, and to propose a common legislation. It was known that the EPP-ED would vote against the text but the surprise came from the GUE/NGL, which had voted for the report in committee but abstained during the vote in plenary, except for 6 of its members who voted against the resolution. The text was supported by the PES, ELDR and the Greens. The GUE/NGL explains that it abstained because it "totally disapproves of the fact that the question of asylum and immigration is linked to that of internal security". Furthermore, there is also criticism within the GUE against the "unacceptable" content of the Commission's communication on this issue. The GUE thus explains why it contributed, together with the EPP-ED albeit for totally different reasons, to making adoption of the report fail, a report that called for exclusion from asylum for security reasons to be done with far greater precaution. The GUE requests that there should be no connection between the two.

Lambert Report on the Refugee Definition and complementary protection

The Citizens' Rights Committee adopted its report on the Commission’s proposal for a directive laying down rules for the qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection status, including provisions on minimum rights and benefits. However, it adopted a number of amendments putting applicants for subsidiary protection on a more equal footing with refugee status applicants and providing for better guarantees and integration opportunities. The committee's report, which was adopted by 25 votes in favour, 18 against and 1 abstention, comes under the consultation procedure and will be on the agenda for the October plenary session in Strasbourg.

ECOSOC

Adoption of ECOSOC Opinion on the Commission's "Green Paper on a Community return policy on illegal residents"

The European Economic and Social Committee stressed that the EU needs legal immigration to enable its economic and social system to function, but that Member states are closing the door on this possibility, causing illegal immigration to rise. The Union, the opinion stresses, needs adequate legislation on immigration and asylum which addresses economic, professional and humanitarian factors, international conventions and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a balanced manner.

Following the ideas of its other opinions on the matter, the Committee considers that “to combat illegal immigration, appropriate channels for legal immigration must exist”. That is why the Committee says it is “surprised and disappointed that the Seville European Council failed to agree a timetable for adoption of the directive on conditions of entry and residence for persons entering the Union for economic purposes”. The meeting of Seville simply focused on what happens at the EU's external borders, and not inside. The cause of illegal immigration lies in Europe and not outside, as in the EU there are possibilities for employment for immigrants (…). The vision of Seville is not balanced, comments Mr. Castanos, adding that with this vision “no integration policy is possible. In Seville, it was the judicial policy that prevailed and not the employment and integration policy”. The Committee does, however, support the decision of the Seville European Council “to maintain the objectives of development co-operation, ensuring that any penalties applied to third countries do not affect co-operation commitments. The best way of easing migratory pressure from developing countries is to step up European Union policies to assist their development”.

European Convention for the Future of Europe

The Convention Working Groups are well under way in their work. In fact, all groups are expected to present their final reports no later than December. Of special interest to ECRE are the following groups: Group II on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and accession to the ECHR; Group VII on External Action; and Group X on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The work of the Convention and its Working Groups can be followed at: http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

Integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU Accession to the ECHR

There seems to be wide agreement regarding the legally binding nature of the Charter. This would therefore give a legally binding nature in the EU to the right to asylum –Article 18- and to non-refoulement –Article 19. There also seems to be support for accession to the ECHR, as it would guarantee the level of protection already enjoyed by the individuals vis-à-vis Member States, and it would ensure the harmonious development of the case-law of the two European Courts.

External Action

This Group has just started its work. The activities of this Group include EU relations vis-à-vis third countries in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, and therefore, also asylum/migration activities of the EU in its external policies. The Group will look into how the EU can develop a more comprehensive approach in its external relations. Among other things this implies that there will be a follow-up on the conclusions from the Seville European Council where it was stated that the Union shall tackle illegal immigration by integrating migration policy into its external relations. A part of this emerging JHA-external relations policy is already evident in the incorporation of readmission agreements into agreements with third countries.

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Working Group X (Area of freedom, security and justice) was recently created. The Group will study, among other matter, European policy issues related to asylum/migration. The ambitious conclusions of Tampere have not been fully implemented and progress has been slower and less substantial than expected. In this regard, the Group has been mandate to explore the improvement of the provisions of Title IV of the TEC, especially in order to streamline and strengthen the powers of the Community in the areas that it covers (asylum/migration).

EU ENLARGEMENT

On 9 October the Commission formally adopted a report on enlargement entitled: Towards the Enlarged Union, recommending that 10 out of 13 candidate countries for EU membership, namely Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, should join in 2004. At the Brussels European Council on 24-25 October the EU leaders will take their final decision on which countries are ready to join. The Heads of State or Government of the 13 candidate countries are invited to a special enlargement summit with the Presidency and the Commission in Copenhagen on 28 October, to inform them about the results of the Brussels meeting.

At the July discussions of the accession negotiations Poland closed the Justice and Home Affairs chapter (total 26 closures). Jan Tuszczyński, the Polish negotiator, said that in the areas of visas, immigration, external borders control and international legal co-operation Poland was largely or already fully in line with the Community legislation and had set all the necessary structures in place for creating the necessary administrative capacities.

In July Poland agreed to tighten controls on the eastern border to facilitate its entry into the EU. It will hire 5,300 extra border guards by 2006, a 50% increase in its staff, will build 10 more border stations and will buy new equipment, such as helicopters and infra-red detection devices. The Polish border guard, which now uses mostly conscripts, will become fully professional within 4 years. Visas for Ukrainian, Belarussian and Russian nationals will be introduced from July 2003.

Interior ministers from Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia met in July and agreed to tackle illegal immigration together and exchange information on asylum seekers. An Austrian government official said: “Beyond the Schengen space, a second belt has been created in EU candidate countries”.

EU Foreign Ministers have recently endorsed the Commission's proposal to introduce a special travel pass for the inhabitants of Kaliningrad after the Union enlarges and surrounds the Russian enclave. Poland and Lithuania will introduce visas next year as they prepare to join the EU in 2004. At the moment, few of the enclave’s over one million inhabitants hold an international passport. The EU will pay for the issue of the new documents. It is also studying the possibility of high-speed, non-stop trains through Lithuania. It is expected that there will be renewed pressure on Moscow to conclude an agreement to take back anyone who tries to exploit the enclave’s special status to sneak into the EU. The Kaliningrad issue will be re-examined at the External Relations Council in Luxembourg on 21-22 October and it is expected to be finally resolved by the EU Heads of States and Governments at the European Council in Brussels on 24-25 October. Moscow would like to reach an agreement on Kaliningrad before the EU-Russia Summit in Copenhagen on 11 November.

ECRE

In mid-July, ECRE issued its Memorandum to the Danish Presidency with ECRE’s 12 “Key Recommendations for a Human Rights orientated EU Asylum Policy”. The Memorandum focuses on ECRE’s main recommendations on the priorities of the Danish Presidency.

Also in July, ECRE issued its Comments on the Commission's Green Paper on on a Community Return Policy of “illegal residents”. ECRE calls on Member States to ensure that the following elements are taken seriously into account in this debate: (1) A common return policy in the EU must provide safeguards against refoulement; (2) fair and satisfactory harmonised asylum procedures are a prerequisite to a common return policy; (3) adequate, effective possibilities for suspensive appeal are necessary; (4) ECRE considers that detention of failed asylum seekers prior to removal for long periods of time, without effective review is unacceptable.