4,
Rue de Pascale, B-1040 Bruxelles
174, Rue Joseph II,
B-1000 Bruxelles
4,
Rue De Pascale, B-1040 Bruxelles
8 Haachtsesteenweg, B-1210 Brussels
50, Square Ambiorix,
B-1000 Bruxelles
Joint
comments
on
the Amended Commission Proposal for a Council Directive
on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for
granting
and withdrawing refugee status
COM
(2002) 326 final/2
Introduction
As
Christian-based organisations, we welcome the effort to harmonise asylum
procedures across the European Union Member States and see it as an integral part of creating a
Common European Asylum System. A fair, transparent and efficient procedure is an essential element in providing
for refugees the
international protection that they are dependent on and entitled to.
As a
preliminary remark and before speaking about the procedures themselves, we must
again raise our deep concerns about the way access to the territory and therefore
to asylum procedures is becoming increasingly restricted. Persons in need of
protection risk serious injury or death owing to the difficulty of obtaining
legal entry, in particular to EU territory. Having the best and most generous
asylum system is of little use if barriers and obstacles are placed in the path
of asylum seekers fleeing persecution. The current regime of visas (including
the imposition of visas requirements on countries in turmoil), carrier
liabilities and interdiction makes it almost impossible for asylum seekers to
legally seek asylum in the EU. Denial of entry can block any access to a fair
refugee status determination procedure.
It has been a feature of recent years
that problems have been caused by differing interpretations by several EU
Member States of the term ‘refugee’ as per the 1951 Refugee Convention. It
would seem sensible to reach agreement about this, before agreeing on asylum
procedures especially because it impacts on such concepts as ‘safe third
country’, ‘safe country of origins’ and ‘manifestly
unfounded’ claims.
Executive Summary
With respect to
asylum procedures, our experience drives us to be profoundly concerned
particularly as regards the following main areas[1]:
We point out one crucial minimum requirement
regarding the decision-making procedures to be that “decisions are taken
by authorities qualified in the field of asylum and refugee matters” and
that personnel responsible for examination of applications receives appropriate training (Art 7
(1c)).
Finally, we are concerned that there is too much
room in the Directive for “derogation” and “discretion”
allowed to Member States to apply uniform procedures, and the use of concepts
such as accelerated procedures, ‘safe third country’, and
‘country of origin’ claims. See for example: Art 39, Para 4 and Art 40, Para 3 (re:
suspensive effect); Art 20 (re: procedural guarantees to the withdrawal or
cancellation of refugee status).
Background observations
In Europe undue length of asylum determination
procedures is a real concern. This is especially so since States are more and
more restricting the movement and curtailing the rights of asylum seekers
during the determination process. Coupled with this we have a concern about poor quality of asylum procedures. We believe that current flaws in the procedures are a
significant factor why persons in need of protection fail to get recognition.
We believe that the following concerns and recommendations are essential[2]:
- The information provided on asylum
procedures is inadequate almost everywhere. Although in some countries thorough
written information is provided, experience shows that asylum seekers rarely
understand the essential points. The information provided is formulated in
overly technical language, or in difficult legal terminology.
- Legal counselling services are also
inadequate almost everywhere. Generally, even in countries where there is
government support for legal counselling services, only some asylum seekers
benefit to a sufficient degree. Broadly there is a lack of high-quality, free
legal aid from lawyers trained in human rights law.
- Refugees face and suffer from a long
and uncertain wait because of the
length of determination procedures. Both governmental and non-governmental agencies agree on the need
to shorten asylum procedures.
- Decision-makers must be fully trained
and competent to deal sympathetically with asylum-seekers of different
educational, cultural and social backgrounds, and able to understand the
psychological complexities that may be involved, for example in dealing with
traumatized persons.
- Decision-makers must have adequate time
and resources to make good decisions, in particular access to high quality and
up-to-date country of origin information. There is a need for transparency as
regards the information on which asylum decisions are made; asylum-seekers and
their representatives must have access to this data. UNHCR and non-governmental
organisations have a role to play in gathering and evaluating this information.
- Proper interpretation services are
vital, as is access to high-quality state-funded legal counselling and
representation; in order to safeguard the rule of law, governments are obliged
to enable persons under their jurisdiction to enjoy their rights.
As regards the draft
Directive we welcome the reference that the Commission makes to the Council
Conclusions of 7 December 2001, revised 18 December 2001, which underline the
need for provisions “ensuring that applicants for asylum receive
substantial guarantees with regard to the decision-making process and that
decisions are of optimum quality”[3].
We agree entirely with the view of the Commission “asylum procedures
should not be so long and drawn out that persons in need of international
protection have to go through a long period of uncertainty before their cases
are decided”[4].
In general our view
of this draft Directive is that it portrays an anxiety on the part of Member
States to protect themselves from false asylum claims, but it does not provide
adequate protection for genuine refugees to protect themselves against poor
decision-making by Member States.
Although there is a
clear need to harmonize the application of concepts and practices in EU Member
States we have serious doubts with regard to some provisions in the proposal
concerning ‘accelerated procedures, ‘manifestly unfounded claims’
and the ‘safe third country’ notion. We would like to warn against
the danger of reducing this proposal to the lowest common
denominator that will defeat the purpose of harmonisation and of the search for
best practice.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
We point out that under international
refugee law (Art 1(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention) refugee status is not
granted but recognised (see for example Para 28 of the Handbook on Procedures
and Criteria for Determining Refugee status).
As set out in previous comments put
forward by the signing organisations, we recommend strongly to make the
standards for asylum procedures also applicable for procedures designed to
determine the need for complementary forms of protection. We would like to see
one single procedure being designed within which both, the refugee status as
well as the complementary protection would be determined.
Article 5: Access to the procedure: Access to the territory and therefore
to the procedure is one central weakness of the current asylum system. The
first stage in this is border procedures. These have to be transparent and accountable. We therefore recommend that
a specific provision be included which mandates ongoing evaluation of border
procedures by an independent agency, such as for example UNHCR. In addition,
the Directive should be more specific about continuous training of border
personnel and
suggest areas where
training is needed such as human rights, international protection and
intercultural competence.
Article 5(4): Consistent with support by the European Union for principles
of family unification, Member States should provide by law derivative asylum
status for family members of the principle applicant. If the family members are accompanying the principle
applicant in the Member State, they should be included in the application
– if they so desire – and be granted derivative asylum status. If they are not physically in the
Member State, a procedure should be created by the Member State permitting them
to join the principle applicant -- should he or she be granted asylum-- and
enter the Member State as refugees.
Article 6: Right to stay pending the
examination of the application: We are very concerned that the right to stay pending the examination
of the application only refers to the decision of the “determining authority” competent for
taking the decision at first instance. Our organizations hold the position that a right is
only substantial if the person enjoying it
This means the right to stay needs to be
guaranteed also during the review or appeal procedure as will be pointed out in
more detail in our comments on Articles 39 and 40.
Article 7: Right to individual
decisions: we welcome
the provision that decisions on asylum should be taken on an individual basis
on the objective circumstances of that person. However, our concern remains, regarding the apparent
building up elsewhere in these proposals of the principles of "safe third
countries" or "safe countries of origin" (Art’s. 27, 28
30, 31 and Annexes 1 and 2).
Efforts to train the personnel who
decide asylum cases are appreciated. However, in most countries the level of
competence in the administrative body that makes the first determination is not
acceptable. In many countries a significant problem is inadequate understanding
of the skills required. One crucial minimum requirement regarding the
decision-making procedures is that “decisions are taken by authorities
qualified in the field of asylum and refugee matters” and that personnel
responsible for examination of applications receive appropriate training (Art 7
(1c)).
However, we feel that current flaws in
the procedures are a significant factor why persons in need of protection fail
to get recognition. This is why we would welcome a harmonized high-level
profile of decision-makers in asylum cases throughout Europe. In particular:
Decision-makers must be fully trained and culturally competent to deal with
asylum-seekers of different educational, cultural and social backgrounds, and
able to understand the psychological complexities that may be involved, for
example in dealing with traumatized persons. Regular training and access to
information should be provided. Research and documentation centres should be
created, to compile country of origin information and asylum-related
jurisprudence. Where additional expertise is necessary, asylum authorities
should be able to consult expert opinion. We, further on, recommend pooling the
information available on international level that should be much more cost
efficient.
Article 9: Guarantees for applicants for
asylum: we are
concerned that Article 9 (1c) stipulates only
that asylum seekers “must not be denied the opportunity to communicate
with the UNHCR or with any other organisation working on behalf of the
UNHCR”. This is far too weak. Relationships with UNHCR and NGOs need to
be encouraged and proactively promoted.
We fail to grasp the reason why
“if a legal adviser or other counsellor is legally representing the
applicant, Member States may choose to notify the decision to him instead of to
the applicant for asylum”. This seems unnecessarily confusing. Surely it
would be better to notify the legal representative in any case; in some
countries it would even be mandatory to proceed in this way according to the
procedural rules in place for administrative law. Optimally, the decision
could, in addition, also be sent to the asylum seeker.
Article 10:
Persons invited to a personal interview: In para. 2b the determining authority is
allowed to be the sole judge of the fitness for interview of the applicant.
Procedural safeguards are needed here and a medical or psychological
certificate should be mandatory.
Where the
personal interview is omitted and in cases where the applicant is offered the
opportunity to make comments, the assistance of a legal adviser or other
counselor is a positive point, but should not be discretionary.
Article 10(2)(c): Failure to obtain a competent
interpreter should not be the basis to forego a personal interview. This prejudices certain categories of
persons speaking certain languages where it is difficult to obtain interpreters.
Article 11:
Requirements for a personal interview: As regards para. 2b our view is that the personal
interview should take place in the language preferred by the applicant. Only if
interpretation services are unavailable should it be conducted in another
language “which [the asylum seeker] may reasonably be supposed to
understand”.
Our experience
on the ground shows that protocols and guidelines for interpreters are urgently
needed and we urge some reference to this.
Gender is an
important issue in generating trust. Article 11 (2 a) should include a
reference to gender. As a rule, female asylum seekers should have female
interviewers and interpreters and male asylum seekers should have male
interviewers and interpreters. A woman, for example, would find it very hard to
talk about rape in the presence of a male interviewer or interpreter.
Article 12:
Status of the transcript of a personal interview in the procedure: In para. 3 we urge a
rewording from “Member States may request the applicant’s approval on
the contents of the transcript” to “Member States shall …”
In the case of
an applicant’s refusal to approve the contents of the transcript of
his/her personal interview and if the determining authority decides to proceed,
safeguards are needed such as the possibility of making personal explanatory
comments in addition to the personal interview. The provision of assistance
from a legal adviser or other counselor should be obligatory.
Article 13:
Right to legal assistance and representation: It is a positive point that the draft
Directive envisages that asylum seekers will have the right to legal
assistance. However, this right needs to be more strongly proposed. In para 1,
instead of allowing applicants for asylum the opportunity to consult, Member States
should undertake to facilitate and promote the access of applicants to legal
advice.
Article 13 (2) only
provides for a right to free legal assistance at the appeal stage - this is
inadequate. Good decision-making
can only be ensured through properly presented cases and this requires legal
assistance at all stages of the process and in all types of case. Legal
assistance should be compulsorily made available to all persons who intend to
lodge an asylum claim, wherever the place from which they wish to introduce the
request (also at international zones or in transit zones of airports).
We agree that the
availability of free legal assistance should be conditional on lack of sufficient resources on the part of the asylum
seeker (Para 2 a). However, we do not agree with the addition of the phrase
“and insofar as such assistance is necessary to ensure their effective
access to justice”, as we believe this adds a subjective dimension which
cannot be easily evaluated.
While it may be necessary
to restrict free legal assistance to a designated group of legal advisers or
other counsellors care should be taken to ensure that there is a sufficient
number of these and that they are adequately trained and supervised by an
independent agency and by the UNHCR.
Article 14: Rights of
legal adviser or counsellor: We strongly urge that any legal adviser or counsellor assisting or
representing an asylum applicant should have unrestricted access to otherwise restricted areas. We do not believe
that either the security of the area or the need to ensure an efficient
examination of the application can justify limitations of this right.
Article 15: Guarantees
for unaccompanied minors:
we welcome the safeguard of the appointment of a representative for
unaccompanied minors, but feel this should be "forthwith" or
"immediately" rather than "as soon as possible" (Art15
(1a).
In article 15
(3) that refers to medical examination to determine age, we point out that such
examinations can be in error by about two years. The principle ‘in dubio
pro minoritate’ should be followed in these cases. Also, the representative or tutor of the
minor should be informed about the examinations, so that he/she can follow the
result/conclusions and have the possibility to question them during the procedure.
Article 16: Establishing the Facts in the
Procedure: Article
16(2) refers to the applicant’s responsibility to provide information on
travel routes in order for the application to be considered complete (to
include all relevant facts). Often
times, applicants for asylum are either helped to enter a country illegally by
family members or friends or they pay smugglers. In the first case, they may be reluctant for reasons of
loyalty to provide information on
“travel routes.”
In the second case, they may be afraid to do so. Therefore, the phrase “where
reasonable” should be included in this section.
Article 17: Detention pending a
decision by the determining authority: Our organisations believe as a general rule that
asylum seekers should not be put in detention. Asylum applicants should only be
detained as a very last resort.
We welcome the proposal
(Art 17 (1) that excludes the detention of asylum seekers “for the sole
reason that his application for asylum needs to be examined”. We welcome
that there is foreseen an initial judicial review and subsequent regular
reviews – this is a real procedural safeguard against arbitrary or
unnecessarily prolonged detention. But we would emphasise that this review
should be mandatory in all cases (Art 17 (1) and Art 17 (2)) on Member States,
not merely “as a possibility” as provided in the proposal. The
review of the decision, including the review the lawfulness of the detention,
should be mandatory at the latest every two weeks.
According to Art 5 ECHR
everyone has the right of a review of detention by a judge. We propose
establishing the principle that any decision on detention should be issued by a
judge as well.
We are opposed to detention
of asylum applicants in order to achieve a more efficient processing of the
claim (Article 17 para. 1) or for a quick decision to be made (Article 17 para.
2) – we believe that there are many other means for achieving such
efficiencies. We observe that detention is not a mean to make a decision more
effective but, on the contrary, to minimise the quality of the decision as
persons are intimidated by the detention and have less possibilities to access
counselling during the procedure.
In addition, clear criteria
and a maximum time frame should be set out for exceptional detention of asylum
seekers. We would like to point out that any grounds for detention should be
harmonised with EXCOMM Conclusion 44 (XXXVIII). Any EU legal basis regarding
detention should comply with international law and standards. In addition,
procedural safeguards are needed, in the case of detention for the purpose of
verifying the identity, to review whether the authority did and does everything
to come as quickly as possible to conclusions as regards the identity. We would
wish to recommend that personnel involved in the interviews about identity of
asylum seekers are better trained, that a real effort is made to create an
atmosphere that reflects authentic respect for the asylum seeker – which
at the moment often is not the case, but suspicion palpable and incomprehension
striking – and that legal counsellors are involved in these interviews
whom the asylum seeker can trust.
Article 18: Detention
after agreement to take charge under Council regulation …: We are very concerned by the provision
in Article 18 that Member States may detain for a period up to one month an
asylum seeker after another Member State has already agreed to take
responsibility for the processing of his/her claim. This is an unnecessarily
long time frame. A maximum of 3 days should be sufficient to arrange the
transfer. This would also safe costs.
Article 19: Procedure in case of
withdrawal of the application: we are concerned at the
opportunity for Member States to reject the application subsequent to its
withdrawal by the asylum seeker. Often decisions to withdraw a claim are based
on poor advice, pressure of circumstances and other reasons. We believe that a
rejection could unnecessarily complicate the procedure – a genuine
applicant could even end up without any substantial hearing of his/her case.
This Article should provide that any decision for withdrawal of an application
must be done without prejudice to the applicant, if he or she chooses to
present an application for asylum in the future.
Article 20: Procedure in case of
implicit withdrawal or abandonment of the application: We are deeply concerned at the possibility to interpret many scenarios as an
“implicit withdrawal” of the asylum application in Article 20.
Communication between asylum authority and asylum seeker can often be
difficult, for reasons as varied as a lack of fixed residence, lack of adequate
financial means to present oneself at the administrative body, negative
influence or pressure from smugglers or traffickers. This interpretation could
lead to rejection of the application (see Article 19), consequent difficulties in lodging a renewed
application (see Article 40) and subsequent removal after a decision in the
accelerated procedure, despite a real risk in the country of origin.
Where it is reasonable to believe an
application has been abandoned, any decision by a Member State withdrawing the
application should be taken without prejudice to the applicant to pursue the
claim in the future. In the case of implicit withdrawal or abandonment, a
Member State should not be permitted to make a decision based on the merits of
the case at that point. Cases
should simply be administratively closed.
Article 21: The role of UNHCR: We support the thrust of this article
and we urge that NGOs should also be
included in it. The UNHCR´s role should be recognized in a more
significant way than is currently envisioned under this article. Member States should be required to
respond to the UNHCR´s comments and criticisms of the application of
asylum procedures. Additionally,
the UNHCR should be permitted to accompany patrols currently in the
Mediterranean as part of Operation Ulysses. Potentially hundreds of persons seeking entry from the South
in “pateras” have asylum claims. However, under current procedures in the Operation,
“pateras” are returned without inquiry.
Article 22: Data Protection: This provision should be edited to
state that disclosure of information regarding individual applications for
asylum to authorities in the country of origin should only be done with the
consent of the applicant.
Article 24: Time limits for an
accelerated procedure:
We are deeply concerned that accelerated procedures can last up to 6 months.
Our view is that even normal procedures should be conducted within such a time
limit. In general, we do not think that a separate procedure for the cases
mentioned (i.e. fast-track/accelerated) contribute to a "simple and
quick" system. They simply add unnecessary hurdles and layers of
complexity. A single procedure
where good quality decisions are made on all facts of an individual's case at
the first stage would ensure a smooth and rapid appeals process, including a
fair and efficient system.
Article 27 and 28: Designation of
countries as safe third countries:
We are seriously concerned that the
safe third country notion as chosen in the proposal puts the burden of proof
unjustly on the asylum seeker. It should be emphasised again that all cases
should be examined and decided on the individual's own circumstances, regardless
of the fact that readmission agreements exists. We believe that there are no
safe countries in any blanket sense. It is totally unacceptable for our
organisations that the Directive allows to “retain or introduce
legislation that allows the designation by law or regulation of safe third
countries”.
We also believe that the right of
appeal against ‘safe third country’ removals has to be suspensive -
the right to appeal from another country is ineffective, a token right that is
virtually impossible to exercise. This is particularly important in the context
of the observation above (i.e. refugee definition) that agreements on
procedures and referrals should come after basic agreements about who is or is
not a refugee otherwise there is the clear risk of refoulement.
We welcome the suggestion that referral
to a ‘safe third county’ should reflect the applicant’s needs
and links. We believe that the
provision in Article 28 (1b) should be strengthened to say that referral should
only take place where there are guarantees of re-admittance, not simply
"grounds for considering that the applicant will be
readmitted.”
Equally, the onus should be on the
sending State to show that that country is safe for that individual and confirm
that they will be admitted to an asylum process that will assess their claim
without danger of refoulement. We believe that the non-refoulement obligation is best met by Member States by the
provision of a full and satisfactory asylum procedure at first instance, where
all asylum claims are thoroughly examined by a competent authority.
Finally, in the case where the applicant has family ties with
someone legally resident in the country that is considering applying the safe third country clause, or in the case
that there are other social or cultural links connecting him to this country,
or for vulnerable persons (such as unaccompanied minors or traumatized persons)
the safe third country notion should not be applied.
Article 30 and 31: Safe countries of
origin: We believe
that there are no safe countries in any blanket sense. It is not acceptable for
our organisations that the Directive allows States to “retain or
introduce legislation that allows the designation by law or regulation of safe
countries of origin”. We are seriously concerned that the safe country of
origin notion as chosen in the proposal puts the burden of proof on the asylum
seeker. It should be emphasised again that all cases should be examined and
decided on the individual's own circumstances.
This is of serious concern as it is clearly
contrary to the basic requirement to consider each individual case on its own
merits and there is a wealth of documentation from previous experiences of
"lists" of supposedly safe countries that are, in reality, far from
safe for some individuals. The
right to asylum is an inalienable and basic human right enshrined in Article 14
of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and this is not dependent on
nationality or country of origin.
To restrict access to a fair, just and efficient process on the basis of
such blanket definitions is inherently unsafe and contrary to international
law.
Article 32: Other cases under the
accelerated procedure:
We are concerned about the criteria suggested for identifying these cases. In particular with regard to Article 32
(a) it has to be stated that applicants commonly have no, or false
documentation.
This should not being used
against them in relation to their asylum claim unless it can be clearly shown that
documents were destroyed in order to deliberately mislead authorities
concerning their identity.
Since legal entry is very limited for asylum seekers, the use of false
documents often is result of the “non-arrival”-policy implemented
by Member States.
As to Art 32 (b): To require
explanations to have serious reasons for considering they have acted in bad
faith seems an extremely subjective and discriminatory basis on which to
implement accelerated procedure. This seems to be a vicious circle: first
access to the
territory on legal grounds
of asylum seekers is made practically
impossible; this drives them into the hands of traffickers and smugglers who usually advise them to destroy documents and perhaps to present a fictionalised versions of their histories. Finally, the asylum seeker’s claim will be looked
upon with suspicion from the outside and the claim will fall under the conditions for accelerated
procedure.
We also point out that there is evidence that a sizeable
minority of those who could claim asylum is often afraid to do so owing to the negative publicity about border policies of
member States. Should
these then be penalised and viewed with suspicion when at last they do present
a claim?
Article 35: Cases of
border procedures: we
welcome that the Directive foresees that some guarantees of the normal
procedure should also be applied in the border procedure. However, we urge that
the procedure at borders should comply with
o
Art 8 (1)
which obliges Member States to ensure that decisions on applications for asylum
are giving in writing
o
Art 9
setting out guarantees for applicants for asylum
o
Art 10
and 11 regarding personal interviews
o
Art 12 on
the status of the transcript of a personal interview
o
Art 13
(2) ensuring access to legal assistance.
The enormously wide
discretion given to member States in para 3 is contrary to the
Directive’s goal of harmonising asylum procedures. The borders are one of
the most sensitive elements in fair and efficient asylum procedures. Leaving
the design of these procedures solely to the Member States means falling at the
first hurdle. The border procedures as laid out in the proposal are impractical
and offer no safeguards
We are deeply concerned by
para 2 saying that “this procedure may also be applicable for applicants
for asylum arriving in airport and port transit zones. We do not see any reason
for treating asylum seekers differently depending on whether they arrive at the
land border or at an airport or port. We urge to make this procedure obligatory
at all borders.
Article 37: Withdrawal
or annulment of refugee status - procedural rules: We are deeply concerned that para 2 allows Member
States to derogate from Articles 9 to 12 “when it is technically
impossible for the competent authority to comply with the provisions of those
Articles”. In fact this is undermining the whole range of guarantees
foreseen for the procedures although the very sensitive act of withdrawing or
annulling the refugee status requires specific safeguards. Member States should
be expected to live up to the guarantees that they themselves consider as
crucial.
Article 39: Review and
appeal proceedings against decisions taken under the regular procedure: There is a real risk of refugees being
deported after the first decision due to the lack of a general suspensive
effect in normal appeal procedures. We are very much concerned by the fact that
persons could be removed in cases where the first decision is based on grounds of national security and
public order (Article 39 para 4).
We are also concerned about the necessity to apply for suspensive
effect if Member States derogate from the general suspensive effect (in
maintaining present legislation – Article 39 para 2). We point out that asking a
court to rule on the
granting of suspensive effect is lower standard
than providing
for a general suspensive
effect and it is additional procedural burden.
Article 40: Review and
appeal proceedings against decisions taken in the accelerated procedure: we very much regret that the proposal
of the original draft Directive as regards the three tier system of decision-making, reviewing and
Appellate Courts was dropped in the amendment.
In the accelerated
procedure there is an even higher risk of refugees being deported since in several cases Member States may be
exempt from waiting for a decision of the court of law on an application for
suspensive effect (Art 40 para 3). These cases include inadmissible applications, renewed application
without new facts, subsequent applications, and national security.
We are particularly
concerned about Art 40 para 3 d because of the potentially wide and unjustified
interpretation of the grounds of national security. Accelerated procedures need
higher procedural safeguards than normal procedures – the Directive does
not live up to this requirement. Accelerated procedures may turn out to be
automatic removal.
Any deportation carried out
before the final decision puts in question the value of the review procedure
and causes serious risk of refoulement. In this regard this provision may
violate Art 33 of the Geneva Convention and Art 3 and 13 ECHR. We urge of the
view that the suspensive effect to appeals should be in all cases, without
discrimination.
Article 41: Time limits
and scope of the examination in review or appeal: this provision is not clear enough when stating
in para 1 a that “these time limits may be shorter for giving notice of
appeal and requests for review in respect of decisions taken under the
accelerated procedure”. We promote including concrete time limits. This
would make sure that remedies are designed in a way to be used effectively.
As to para 2 allowing
Member States to lay down the conditions under which it can be assumed that an
applicant has implicitly withdrawn or abandoned his review or appeal together
with the rules on the procedure to be followed in these cases, we refer to our
comments made above under Articles 19 and 20 that should be applied here as
well.
Additionally, our organisations
recommend the European Union should establish an independent quality assessment
of asylum procedures and asylum decisions in Member States. This would ask for
defining criteria and agree on
indicators.
Our organisations would
like to reiterate that since all EU Member States are parties to the 1951
Geneva Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and the European
Convention on Human Rights, their respect for human rights obligations is not a
matter of choice, but of duty.
Brussels, 12
May 2003
[1] Compare: “Caritas Europa comments on the
Commission proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures
in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (2000)
578 final”, May 2001
[2] Compare: “Fair treatment of asylum seekers -
Caritas Europa Position Paper on key standards for the reception of asylum
seekers and for asylum procedures”, February 2001
[3] Preamble, pt. 6
[4] Preamble, pt. 10