No

No. 6

February 2004

ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE

Policy Developments........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

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

ECRE projects supported by the European Refugee Fund (ERF)........................................................................................................ 4

Legal Developments.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE...................................................................................................................... 5

CAT Case Law.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Sweden, Article 2, 3 and 16 CAT....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

[CAT/C/31/D/228/2003, decision of 2 December 2003, Communication No 228/2003, Mr. T.M v Sweden]................................... 5

Sweden, Article 3 CAT......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

[CAT/C/31/D/213/2002, decision of 28 November 2003, Communication No 213/2002, Mr. E.J.V.M v Sweden].................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

[CAT/C/31/D/215/2002, decision of 18 November 2003, Communication No 215/2002, Mr. J.A.G.V v Sweden].................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Denmark, Article 3 CAT...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

[CAT/C/31/D/209/2002, decision of 17 November 2003, Communication No 209/2002, Mr. M.O v Denmark]............................. 7

Switzerland, Article 3 CAT.................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

[CAT/C/31/D/236/2003, decision of 14 November 2003, Communication No 236/2003, Mr. A.T.A v Switzerland] (Admissibility decision)................................................................................................................................................................ 7

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD........................................................................................... 8

COUNCIL OF EUROPE............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

CPT Visits................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Azerbaijan................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Bulgaria.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Georgia..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

France....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Malta......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS................................................................................................................................................ 10

Tomic v. United Kingdom (no. 17837/03)...................................................................................................................................................... 10

Slivenko v. Latvia (no. 48321/99)..................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Shamsa v. Poland (no. 45355/99 and 45357/99)............................................................................................................................................ 11

National Developments............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

BELARUS..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Foreigners’ Entry Simplified Since January............................................................................................................................................... 12

Belarusian authorities closed 50 NGOs in 2003....................................................................................................................................... 12

BELGIUM..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Four Belgian police officers guilty over the death of Semira Adamu............................................................................................... 12

DENMARK.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Proposed bill restricting citizenship to children born of foreigners in Denmark......................................................................... 12

ESTONIA...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

New amendments to the Estonian Law on Foreigners approved........................................................................................................ 13

FRANCE........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

New asylum law in force..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Britain and France extend their borders with cross-Channel immigration checks.................................................................... 13

GERMANY.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Kurdish family to be deported from Germany............................................................................................................................................ 13

No deportation of Ghanaian father of German child............................................................................................................................... 13

GREECE........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14

Introduction of two-year permits..................................................................................................................................................................... 14

ITALY............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Report by Medici Senza Frontiere on conditions in detention centres............................................................................................. 14

NETHERLANDS....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Government decision to expel 26 000 asylum seekers............................................................................................................................ 14

NORWAY..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Rules on fast track asylum procedure introduced.................................................................................................................................... 14

Return of Iraqi asylum seekers......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

RUSSIA.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

New Russian Passports........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Skinheads blamed for race crimes in Russia............................................................................................................................................... 15

Ethnic discrimination against Chechens...................................................................................................................................................... 15

Chechnya: Situation Precarious for IDP Return...................................................................................................................................... 15

SPAIN............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Tougher Aliens Act has come into force....................................................................................................................................................... 15

SWEDEN....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Deportation of Iranian homosexual............................................................................................................................................................... 16

Restricted entry for workers from new EU member states.................................................................................................................... 16

SWITZERLAND........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Anti-asylum hard-liner to head Justice Ministry....................................................................................................................................... 16

UNITED KINGDOM................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Law lords allow refugees to live where they choose................................................................................................................................ 16

Damages awarded to asylum seeking mother............................................................................................................................................. 17

Visa requirements ended for Slovaks............................................................................................................................................................. 17

10-year prison sentence for Albanian sex trader operating in the United Kingdom.................................................................. 17

Safeguarding Britain’s benefit system when 10 new Member States accede to the EU............................................................. 17

New Asylum and Immigration Bill.................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Return of Iraqi Kurds to Northern Iraq........................................................................................................................................................ 17

TURKEY....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Agreement reached on return of Kurds from Iraq.................................................................................................................................... 18

EU Developments................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

ECRE MATERIAL.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

ECRE’s Memorandum to the Irish Presidency.......................................................................................................................................... 19

Recommendations to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 22-23 January 2004 on the "Safe Third County" (STC) concept............................................................................................................................................................... 19

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN EU ASYLUM AGENDA.................................................................................................................... 19

Qualifications Directive...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Asylum Procedures Directive........................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Framework Preparatory Action on Returns............................................................................................................................................... 20

European Refugee Fund II................................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Long-term Residents Directive published in Official Journal.............................................................................................................. 21

PRESIDENCIES OF THE EU............................................................................................................................................................................... 21

The Irish Presidency............................................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Future Presidencies of the EU......................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Outcome of the JHA Council on 19 February 2004................................................................................................................................ 22

Outcome of the JHA informal Council on 22/23 January 2004.......................................................................................................... 22

Readmission of persons residing without authorisation........................................................................................................................ 23

Proposal for a readmission agreement with Albania..................................................................................................................................... 23

Readmission clause included in the Memorandum of understanding between the EC and China....................................................... 23

Readmission agreement with Hong Kong published.................................................................................................................................... 23

Readmission clause included in Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreements with Central American countries and the Andean Community............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Readmission clause included in association agreement with Syria............................................................................................................ 24

EUROPEAN COMMISSION................................................................................................................................................................................ 24

Commission’s communication: biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom security and justice in the European Union (second half of 2003)....................................................... 24

Commission wants the SIS II to include biometrics................................................................................................................................. 24

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT................................................................................................................................................................................ 25

EP annual debate on the area of freedom, security and justice.......................................................................................................... 25

Awarding of EP’s Shakarov prize to the UN.............................................................................................................................................. 25

EP Report on Human Rights in the EU - Seminar on Fundamental Rights in the EU.............................................................. 26

EP adopts resolutions on the European Commissions communications on immigration......................................................... 26

CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY............................................................................................................................................................................ 27

EU ENLARGEMENT.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Ratification of the EU Accession Treaty....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Publications, websites and events................................................................................................................................................ 29

Other Publications............................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Events............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29

Websites....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

No. 6

February 2004

ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE

Policy Developments

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

The Communications of the Committee are available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat.htm

CAT Case Law

Sweden, Article 2, 3 and 16 CAT

[CAT/C/31/D/228/2003, decision of 2 December 2003, Communication No 228/2003, Mr. T.M v Sweden]

During its 31^st session in November 2003, the Committee against Torture considered a complaint by Mr. T.M against Sweden.

The complainant, who is a Bangladeshi national, claimed that his deportation from Sweden to Bangladesh would constitute a violation by Sweden of articles 2, 3 and 16 of the Convention against Torture. He submitted that he would be arrested upon return to Bangladesh to face prolonged legal proceedings and that there was a very high risk that he would be subjected to torture by the police during investigations. The complainant also argued that his mental health had worsened due to the threat of deportation.

The complainant applied for asylum upon arrival in Sweden on 26 September 1999. The complainant claimed that he was politically active between 1994 and 1997 in the Bangladesh Freedom Party (BFP). He claimed that he had suffered harassment from the Government at that time and had been falsely accused on a number of grounds. During his arrest he claimed to have been subjected to torture. When released on bail he claimed that he went into hiding for two years and as the political situation worsened, he paid a smuggler to arrange for departure from Bangladesh.

On 8 October 1999, the Immigration Board denied his application. The Board found that the BFP was legal in Bangladesh and that the complainant had not engaged in any impermissible political activity. The Board also established a variety of credibility problems related to documentation.

The complainant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board and submitted further documents provided by the complainant’s Bangladeshi lawyer. However, the Aliens Appeals Board rejected his claim on 10 December 1999. The Board argued that the complainant’s affiliation with the BFP did not constitute grounds for asylum. Furthermore, concerning the false accusations allegedly made, they thought that the complainant would have his case determined in a legally acceptable manner in Bangladesh. Regarding the allegation of abuse following arrest, the Board admitted that it occurred, but denied that the Government had sanctioned it.

On 20 December 2002, the complainant lodged a new application to the Aliens Appeals Board arguing that his subjection to torture in Bangladesh had resulted in physical and mental injuries. He suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome and claimed that return to his country would place him at “great risk” of taking his own life.

On 16 January 2003, the Board rejected his application. They found that there was no current risk of torture since six years had passed since the complainant was sought by the Bangladeshi authorities and that the party allegedly persecuting him was no longer in power. Hence there was no reason to fear such treatment. Regarding the health of the complainant, the Board concluded that it was primarily due to his unsettled life in Sweden resulting from his failure to comply with the expulsion order and his continued illegal presence there.

The Committee found that articles 2 and 16 were inadmissible under the Convention against Torture. The reason for this being that the scope of the non-refoulement obligation described in article 3 does not extend to situations of ill-treatment foreseen by article 16. Neither is the aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental health through deportation sufficient to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16. The claim under article 3 of the Convention was found admissible. However, the Committee considered that the complainant had failed to show that substantial grounds existed, at the time of removal he did not establish that there was a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. The reasons for this being that six years had passed since the allegations of torture took place and also that the complainant’s party now participates in government. The Committee concluded that the complainant had not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Bangladesh and Sweden did therefore not breach its obligations under article 3 of the Convention.

Sweden, Article 3 CAT

[CAT/C/31/D/213/2002, decision of 28 November 2003, Communication No 213/2002, Mr. E.J.V.M v Sweden]

During its 31^st session in November 2003, the Committee against Torture considered a complaint by Mr. E.J.V.M against Sweden.

The complainant, who is a Costa Rican citizen, claimed that his deportation from Sweden would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

The complainant joined and became an active member of a communist party, the Costa Rica Vanguard Youth (JVC), in 1975. He participated in various student political and cultural activities and was subsequently arrested. He was taken to prison and he alleged that he was physically and mentally tortured there. Between 1975 and 1980 he was arrested several times and imprisoned in inhumane conditions, although he managed to escape a few times. On one occasion he was taken to the General Detention Facility of the Ministry of Public Security where he claimed to have been subjected to several forms of physical and mental ill-treatment. The complainant said that he fled to Venezuela where he lived for two years before he returned to Costa Rica in 1982. Upon return he set up an underground theatre from which Radio Vencermos, the official medium of the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMNL), used to make clandestine broadcasts. In 1985 the claimant asserted that security forces raided his house and arrested him and subjected him to torture. In 1990, the claimant alleged that he was arrested and tortured so badly that he had to be taken to a hospital. Between 1992 and 1993 he claimed that he was arrested in an operation coordinated by the national police and paramilitary groups because of his participation in the defence of the rights of Limon peasants. He explained that he was again subjected to torture in the prison to where he was taken. The complainant further claimed that he was detained more than 30 times between 1994 and 1997. Furthermore the complainant claimed that his life was in danger because he is bisexual and is living with a female-to-male transsexual. The complainant also stressed that he was the victim of an assassination attempt in 1995.

On 17 May 1997, the complainant left Costa Rica and applied for asylum in Canada. However, this application was refused. On 12 July 2002, the complainant made for Sweden instead where he filed an application for asylum. This application was also rejected.

The State Party argued that the general human rights situation in Costa Rica had improved and that there was currently no consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country. The State Party further stressed that there were discrepancies and grey areas in the complainant’s story, which were not clarified by the complainant. The Committee took note of the assertions put forward by the State Party and further observed that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of being subjected to torture in Costa Rica. The Committee also observed that the claimant had not provided evidence of his assertion that the Government in Costa Rica had not protected him. Concerning the claimant’s bisexuality, the Committee considered that the danger of him being subjected to torture in the future was not based on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.

The Committee therefore concluded from all the above stated that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the claimant was personally and currently in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Costa Rica. Hence the removal of the claimant to Costa Rica would not constitute a breach by the State Party of article 3 of the Convention.

Sweden, Article 3 CAT

[CAT/C/31/D/215/2002, decision of 18 November 2003, Communication No 215/2002, Mr. J.A.G.V v Sweden]

During its 31^st session in November 2003, the Committee against Torture considered a complaint by Mr. J.A.G.V against Sweden.

The complainant, a Colombian national, claimed that his deportation from Sweden would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

The claimant was a member of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) and the United Confederation of Workers (CUT). He claimed that he had been arrested and tortured by the Colombian police on several occasions during the1990s. The complainant left Colombia on a false passport and arrived in Sweden on 25 March 1998. On 26 May 1998, he applied for a permanent residence permit under the name of Celimo Torres Romero. On 24 July, he was arrested for drug trafficking and later sentenced to six year’s imprisonment and expulsion. On 13 October he applied for asylum under the identity of Jose Angel Grueso Vargas. The application was rejected on the grounds that he had applied for asylum after being sentenced to deportation from Swedish territory. The claimant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board, but this claim was also rejected.

The Committee considered that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that he was subjected to torture in Colombia. The Committee therefore concluded on the basis of the information provided, that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he was personally in danger of being tortured when returned to Colombia. Hence the removal of the complainant to Colombia did not constitute a breach by the State Party of article 3 of the Convention.

Denmark, Article 3 CAT

[CAT/C/31/D/209/2002, decision of 17 November 2003, Communication No 209/2002, Mr. M.O v Denmark]

During its 31^st session in November 2003, the Committee against Torture considered a complaint by Mr. M.O against Denmark.

The complainant, an Algerian national, claimed that his deportation from Denmark would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

The complainant served in the Algerian army from approximately 1991 until 1998. In 1994 he claimed that the Groupe Islamic Algerien (GIA) contacted him and asked him to work for them, but he refused. In 1994, the claimant was sent to a military prison for unspecified reasons. In 1996, the claimant argued that the Algerian authorities learned that he had been in contact with the GIA and in 1996 he was arrested and sent to prison, on suspicion of having supplied the GIA with weapons, food and ammunition. During interrogation, the claimant alleged that he was subjected to torture and unable to bear the torture, he admitted to having worked for the GIA.

The complainant fled to Denmark and applied for asylum on 28 December 1999. Yet, on 2 March, his application was rejected. He appealed to the Refugee Review Board, but on 21 August 2001, they gave a negative decision, the main reasons being that the claimant was unreliable and that there were discrepancies in his story. He had also produced insufficient evidence. After having gone through a psychological

examination, he applied to have his case re-opened, based on the psychologist’s report. This was rejected on 24 January 2003. The complainant argued that the inconsistencies in his story were due to the fact that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and that the interpreter provided during the interview spoke an Arabic that he had difficulty in understanding.

The Committee noted that the relevant evidence in the case was fully considered by the Danish authorities and that the Danish authorities had found numerous discrepancies in the claimant’s case. According to Committee case law, due weight must be accorded to findings of fact made by government authorities. Also, the conclusions made by the Danish authorities concerning the claimant’s lack of credibility were found reasonable by the Committee. The Committee therefore came to the conclusion that the claimant had not sufficiently established that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured. Thus, the Committee concluded that the removal of the complainant to Algeria did not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.

Switzerland, Article 3 CAT

[CAT/C/31/D/236/2003, decision of 14 November 2003, Communication No 236/2003, Mr. A.T.A v Switzerland] (Admissibility decision)

During its 31^st session in November 2003, the Committee against Torture considered a complaint by Mr. A.T.A against Switzerland.

The complainant, a Togolese national, claimed that his deportation from Switzerland would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

In 1996 the complainant joined the Union des Forces du Changement (UFC). In April 2000 he played a game of soccer against the team of the ruling political party. The team of the complainant won, and the complainant himself made the decisive goal. The same evening the complainant said that two soldiers came to his house, and while trying to escape he got shot at. The complainant argued that the security forces in Togo are controlled by the Khabye ethnic majority and frequently violate human rights. The complainant belongs to the Ewe ethnic minority.

The complainant left Togo and applied for asylum in Switzerland on 30 May 2000. His claim was dismissed at both first and second instance.

The Committee noted that the information provided by the complainant was in general vague and that it did not reveal the existence of any personal and foreseeable risk of torture to which the complainant might be subjected upon return to Togo. The Committee further stated that the complainant had not presented an arguable claim and therefore concluded that the threshold of admissibility was not met. The Committee therefore found that the complaint was manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible.

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

The concluding observations are available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/

Germany

[CRC/C/15/Add.226, 30 January 2004] Unedited version

During its 35^th session in January 2004, the Committee on the Rights of the Child gave its concluding observations on Germany’s second report to the Committee.

One of the issues that the Committee considered concerned refugee children in Germany. The Committee expressed concerns on a number of issues and gave corresponding recommendations.

One of the issues concerned Roma children and other children belonging to ethnic minorities. The Committee was troubled that these children were forcibly returned to the countries from which their families had fled. The Committee therefore recommended that the State party review its legislation and policies regarding Roma children and other children belonging to ethnic minorities who sought asylum in the State.

The Committee also expressed concern over the fact that the recruitment of child soldiers is not considered child specific persecution in the asylum procedure. The Committee recommended that family reunification requirements and procedures, in particular for 1951 Convention refugee families, should be eased. Additionally, the Committee recommended that the State party ensure that birth certificates be issued to all children of refugees and asylum seekers born in the State territory. Lastly, the Committee was concerned that children between the ages of 16 and 18 are not entitled to the rights included under the Youth Welfare Act and recommended that the State party should fully apply these provisions to refugee children as well.

http://www.ohchr.org/tbru/crc/Germany.pdf

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

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

The full texts of the following reports are available on: http://www.cpt.coe.int

“CPT Standards” and further documents about the CPT are now available in Italian.

CPT Visits

Azerbaijan

On 12 January 2004, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) carried out its second visit to Azerbaijan. The visit lasted for two days. The main purpose of the visit was to collect information concerning the treatment of persons detained in relation to the events which followed the recent Presidential election. The delegation interviewed some thirty persons, currently held at Investigative isolator No 1 (Bayil) in Baku. In addition, the delegation visited the Temporary detention centre of the Department for combating organised crime in Baku.

Bulgaria

On 16 December 2003, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) began its seven-day visit to Bulgaria. It was the fourth visit of the Committee to the country. The purpose of the visit was to review the situation of persons placed by the public authorities in homes for adults with mental disorders and for children with mental retardation. The CPT had already visited such establishments in the past and the conditions observed there were of deep concern to the Committee.

Georgia

Two responses of the Georgian Government providing information on issues raised by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on its first periodic visit to Georgia in May 2001, were published on 29 January 2003. The responses as well as the visit report are available on the CPT website http://www.cpt.coe.int .

In response to the CPT’s recommendations aimed at preventing ill-treatment by the police, the Georgian authorities have taken measures to improve professional training and step up control of police activities. However, it is acknowledged that conditions of detention at the majority of police facilities remain unsatisfactory, due to a lack of finance.

As regards prison establishments, the Georgian authorities have reacted favourably to a number of recommendations and comments made by the CPT. However, conditions at Prison No. 5 in Tbilisi - which is the largest pre-trial establishment in the country - are mostly unchanged. The establishment remains overcrowded and the building estate has additionally deteriorated as a result of the 2002 earthquake. The authorities' efforts to re-allocate prisoners and refurbish Prison No. 5 are being thwarted by difficulties in financing the completion of a new prison in Rustavi.

The responses also refer to some progress at the Strict Regime Psychiatric Hospital in Poti. In particular, screening for tuberculosis of newly admitted patients has been introduced. More improvements are expected in 2004, as a consequence of the increased funding of the federal programme for psychiatric treatment.

France

On 16 December 2003, the French Government agreed to the publication of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on the visit which it carried out at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport from 17 to 21 June 2002. The aim of the visit was to examine the situation of foreign nationals held at the airport. Both the report and the response of the French authorities are published and available on the CPT website http://www.cpt.coe.int .

No credible allegations were heard of ill-treatment of detained persons by staff employed in Immigration Waiting Zones (ZAPI) Nos. 2 and 3. However, there were a certain number of allegations of ill-treatment of foreign nationals (slaps, kicks, baton blows, tight handcuffing, threats and insults) by police officers during passport control, requests for asylum and attempts to force detainees to board aircraft. In their response, the French authorities emphasise that the professional code of ethics - and

the sanctions imposed on those who contravene that code - are periodically recalled, clarified and explained in detail.

The CPT has recommended that certain aspects of the directives concerning the forcible removal of foreign nationals by air should be completed and updated. An assessment has been undertaken by the French authorities, which should soon result in the directives being updated.

In their response, the French authorities provided details on a series of initiatives currently underway and measures taken following CPT recommendations concerning detention areas in terminals and at the local removal unit.

The holding conditions of ZAPI Nos. 2 and 3 showed a clear improvement. The holding conditions, subject to the improvements suggested by the CPT, could be satisfactory for detention periods of up to 20 days.

Measures for improving the health care of detained persons were also suggested. In their response, the French authorities agreed to undertake measures aimed at reinforcing the health-care team in the ZAPI and indicated that a permanent medical presence will be maintained in the holding zone.

Malta

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) carried out an ad hoc visit to Malta from 18 to 22 January 2004. It was the Committee's fourth visit to that country. Three periodic visits took place in 1990, 1995 and 2001. The main purpose of the visit was to examine the treatment of foreign nationals detained under immigration legislation, as well as the procedures and means of restraint applied in the context of forcible removals by air.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The full texts of the following cases are available on: http://www.echr.coe.int

Tomic v. United Kingdom (no. 17837/03)

Expulsion to Croatia of an ethnic Serb, article 3, inadmissible

The applicant is an ethnic Serb from Croatia and was a member of a paramilitary organisation during the war. He claimed to have been beaten by the Croatian police prior to the war due to his ethnic origin and he argued that his wife was killed for the same reason in 1992. In 1997 he moved to Serbia for fear of imprisonment and stayed there for four years. In 2002 he applied for asylum in the UK. The Secretary of State rejected his application on the grounds that there was no real risk in his returning to Croatia. This decision was overturned by the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator argued that despite the fact that the applicant had not been involved in war crimes, he was reasonably likely to be arrested on such charges if returned to Croatia, particularly due to his position as commander of one of the special units. There was a reasonable likelihood of lengthy incarceration without a fair trial. She also found that the level of discrimination that he would face as an ethnic Serb on a general level would cumulatively amount to persecution. The Secretary of State appealed against the decision and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal quashed the decision of the Adjudicator.

The applicant claimed a violation of article 3 of the European Convention and thus turned to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant’s arguments rested on two grounds: that as an ex-special unit commander he would be at particular risk of ill-treatment and that as a Serb he would be returned to a severely discriminatory situation. However, the Court found the case inadmissible. It noted that a general amnesty had been given to those participating in the war and that the applicant had not substantiated how his return to Croatia would expose him to a risk of ill-treatment as an ex-combatant. In addition no particular problems of discrimination were specified. Furthermore, the case concerned an expulsion to a High Contracting party to the Convention, which had agreed to secure the rights given under its provisions. Hence, the Court found the case manifestly unfounded.

Slivenko v. Latvia (no. 48321/99)

Violation of article 8 when family of former Soviet military officer was deported

Two Latvian residents of Russian origin filed a complaint at the European Court of Human Rights claiming a violation of articles 8, 14, 5.1 and 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The two applicants, a mother and her daughter, were former Latvian residents of Russian origin. The mother moved to Latvia with her family when she was only one month old. Her father was an officer in the army of the Soviet Union. She later married a man, also a Soviet officer, and a year after their marriage, she gave birth to a girl. When Latvia gained independence the applicants were registered as “ex-USSR citizens”. In 1994 the first applicant’s husband applied for a temporary residence permit since he had been discharged from the army that year. His application was rejected and he was obliged to leave Latvia in accordance with a treaty on the withdrawal of Russian troops that had applied from January 1992. In August 1996 the deportation of all family members was ordered. The husband moved to Russia, but the two applicants challenged the decision in court. The Latvian courts made a negative ruling and the applicants were later ordered to leave the country.

Under article 8 of the Convention the two applicants argued that their removal to Russia violated their right to respect for private life and home. Their main basis being that they had both since birth developed a network of personal, social and economic ties constituting a private life in Latvia. However, the family was not separated, since the deportation order concerned all three family members. Under the Convention there is no right to choose ones country of residence. However, the fact that the first applicant’s parents still remained in the country could be taken into account, even though they did not belong to the core family.

The treaty on the withdrawal of Russian troops was not in force when the applicants were registered as “ex-USSR citizens”, but it was accepted that domestic law could later be legitimately interpreted in the light of the treaty. In addition, it was adjudged that the applicants must have been able to foresee, at least with legal aid, that they would be regarded as covered by the treaty. Due to Latvia’s newly regained independence, the Court accepted that the treaty and its implementing measures, had sought to protect national security. It could also be said that the arrangement respected family life in that it did not interfere with the family unit. The withdrawal of active servicemen and their families is normal in the military and furthermore, the continued presence of active servicemen of a foreign army might be seen as a threat to national security. The public interest in their removal and that of their families would therefore normally outweigh the individual’s interest in staying.

However, removal measures might not always be justified. For example, they did not apply to the same extent to retired officers and their families. Although decisions were taken on a case-by-case basis, the authorities did not appear to have examined whether each person presented a specific danger to national security or public order. A scheme for withdrawal of foreign troops and their families based on a general finding that their removal was necessary for national security was not as such incompatible with Article 8, but implementation of such a scheme without any possibility of taking into account individual circumstances was.

Considering all the circumstances in the case, it was decided that the measures taken by the Latvian government were not necessary in a democratic society. The Court therefore found that there was a violation of article 8 of the Convention. As for the allegations of violation under articles 14 and 5.4, the Court found it unnecessary to rule on the matter. There was no violation of article 5.1.

Shamsa v. Poland (no. 45355/99 and 45357/99)

Detention awaiting expulsion, violation of article 5.1

Two applicants of Libyan nationality residing in Warsaw were arrested during an identity check. They were ordered to leave the country and while awaiting expulsion they were detained. The expulsion order was due to be executed within 90 days. When the 90 days had expired, attempts were made to send back the applicants. However, this failed and they were returned to Warsaw. Upon return to Warsaw on 25 August, it was said that the applicants’ stay was undesirable. Between this date and 3 October the applicants were detained at Warsaw Airport at the premises of the immigration authorities. The applicants filed a complaint against this detention and claimed it to be unlawful. However, the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the applicants had chosen to remain on the premises of the immigration authorities of their own free will, since they refused to be expelled to Libya.

The two applicants referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming deprivation of liberty under article 5.1 of the European Convention. According to Polish law, the applicants were to be released from detention after the statutory period of 90 days had come to an end. However, this was not done. The Court considered that the detention after the statutory period of 90 days had expired was not in accordance with the law or lawful and therefore was a deprivation of liberty as defined under article 5.1 of the Convention. The Court considered that detention in a transit area for an indeterminate and unforeseeable period of time without legal basis or a valid court decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

BELARUS

Foreigners’ Entry Simplified Since January

Since January 1, 2004 the rules of entry for citizens of the European Union to the territory of Belarus have been simplified. According to the decision of the government of the country, in a one-sided order Belarus repealed the norm demanding Western Europeans to have a special invitation to visit for either personal or business reasons.

Belarusian authorities closed 50 NGOs in 2003

Justice Minister Viktar Halavanau instructed journalists on 29 January that his ministry had conducted inspections of more than 800 nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) last year, resulting in the judicial liquidation of 51 of them. The Minsk City Court boosted that figure the same day by ordering the liquidation of the Independent Society of Legal Studies. The court found the organization guilty of declaring an incorrect address in its founding documents and carrying out activities outside Minsk despite a constraint on this in its charter.

BELGIUM

Four Belgian police officers guilty over the death of Semira Adamu

On 12 December 2003, a Brussels court found four former Belgian police officers guilty of assault, battery and negligence in the case of Semira Adamu who died during a forced deportation in 1998. The presiding magistrate said in his ruling that regulations had not been followed, excessive force had been used, and that police chiefs and the government shared responsibility for Semira’s death. Semira Adamu, whose ankles were shackled, was on a plane going to Lagos in Nigeria. She died from suffocation when her face was pushed into a cushion and held there. When asked in court why the use of so much force was necessary one of the officers told the court that it was necessary: "to avoid disturbing other passengers". Semira was 20 years old at the time of her death and resisted deportation because she was returning to a forced marriage to a 65 year old man who already had four wives. Five police officers appeared before the court, one was acquitted, three were given one year suspended sentences, and the fourth, the unit’s chief, got a 14-month suspended sentence. The court ordered the Belgian state to pay undisclosed damages to her family.

Semira's death in 1998 led to the resignation of the then Interior Minister Louis Tobback.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/dec/09semira-adamu.htm

DENMARK

Proposed bill restricting citizenship to children born of foreigners in Denmark

At the end of January, the Danish Government proposed a bill that would strip children born in Denmark of foreign parents of their right to automatic citizenship. A strong force behind the proposal was the Danish People’s Party (DDP), a right-wing party whom the minority government informally relies on in parliament. The DDP is the third largest party in the country and it has heavily influenced the government’s immigration policy. Notwithstanding international criticism from humanitarian organisations, the EU and others, the government has pursued its policies with the goal of drastically reducing the number of immigrants.

The implication for the Danish-born children is that they have to present a naturalisation application like any other immigrant to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Currently all Danish born children receive automatic citizenship if they request it between the age of 18 and 23. According to the bill, naturalised immigrants possessing Danish citizenship can also loose this if they commit crimes “against society” or acts that “threaten the independence or security of the state”.

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/news > world news

ESTONIA

New amendments to the Estonian Law on Foreigners approved

Amendments to the Law on Foreigners have been approved by the Estonian parliament and the Estonian president. The amendments deny permanent residence permits to retired Russian officers and their families in Estonia. The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated that in Russia’s view, the amendments display Estonia’s failure to meet its commitments to Russia.

http://www.legislationline.org/index.php?sc=2

FRANCE

New asylum law in force

On 1 January 2004, a reform of the law of asylum from 1952 came into force. The text introduced the procedure which will govern the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless People (OFPRA) in its dealing with all applications for asylum. The reform introduced three new concepts: The concept of subsidiary protection for foreigners fearing threats in their country but falling outside the definition of refugee under the Geneva Convention. This subsidiary protection is granted for one (renewable) year, provided that there is no suspicion of a serious infringement or risk to the public order. The concept of internal asylum, allowing OFPRA to dismiss applications where the applicant might find refuge in another part of his country of origin, thanks to an international or regional organization. The concept of safe country of origin; used as a justification for dismissing applications from asylum seekers coming from safe countries, i.e. countries deemed to respect individual freedoms and human rights. Until a common EU list is made available, a list of these safe countries will be drawn up by OFPRA.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/legal-news/french/index.shtml?archive

http://www.vie-publique.fr/actualite/panorama/panorama_droitasile.htm

Britain and France extend their borders with cross-Channel immigration checks

On 1 February 2004, French and British immigration officers began their work on ports in the two countries in an effort to control illegal immigration. The agreement entails British officials being stationed at Calais and Dunkirk to check the papers of passengers heading towards Britain. Similarly, French authorities are to be placed in Dover to check passengers on their way to France. The idea is that passengers who do not have their proper travel documents shall not be admitted to the other country’s territory. Other measures also taken include better security at the Channel tunnel and high-tech vehicle scanning systems to find hidden passengers.

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/news > world news

GERMANY

Kurdish family to be deported from Germany

A family of Kurdish asylum seekers from Turkey will be deported from Germany. The family had previously sought asylum in the UK and Greece, but their claim was rejected there as well. The father of the family was deported from the UK to Germany in 2002 and the German authorities sent him back to Istanbul in May. There has been no news of him since. The German authorities said that they were not politically active during their time in exile and there is no evidence of them facing persecution upon return. However, despite the fact that the Turkish government has passed reform legislation to improve the human rights situation in the country, organisations such as the Council of Europe, the European Commission and several non-governmental organisations, have expressed concern about the failure of the authorities to implement them. A Human Rights Watch spokesperson on Turkish affairs said that there are restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language in Turkey and that there were incidents last year in which people tried to return to their homes but were attacked by village guards and in some cases killed.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/9253.html

No deportation of Ghanaian father of German child

On 2 December 2003, the High Administrative Court (OVG) of Saarlouis announced that it upheld the appeal lodged by a Ghanaian against a deportation order on the grounds that he is the father of a child born to a German woman. The OVG ruled that the constitutionally guaranteed protection of the family takes precedence over the country’s immigration laws. The Ghanaian man had entered Germany illegally and when this was discovered, he was ordered to leave the country. The man refused to do so and argued instead that he is the father of the now almost five-year-old child.

Migration News Letter, January 2004.

GREECE

Introduction of two-year permits

In mid-December a new law was published introducing a residence permit valid for two years. To qualify migrants must have been staying in Greece for at least two years. The migrant communities are not delighted about the new law, since they had wanted a five-year permit after an initial one valid for twelve months. One of the reasons for this being that Greek bureaucracy is so slow that by the time a person actually receives their residence permit, several months of validity would already be lost.

Migration News Sheet, January 2004.

ITALY

Report by Medici Senza Frontiere on conditions in detention centres

According to a report published by the Italian Branch of the International Medicins Sans Frontieres, Medici Senza Frontiere (MSF), several human rights are being violated in Italian temporary detention centres for foreigners. Examples of such violations are inadequate accommodation, limited contact with national health services, insufficient legal and psychological assistance, abuses in the use of psychiatric drugs and the use of excessive force during interventions by law enforcement officers.

This report is the result of the first complete monitoring of these detention centres that has been undertaken by an independent and impartial organization. During the monitoring process MSF found that asylum seekers are present in several centres.

ECRAN 11 February, 2004

NETHERLANDS

Government decision to expel 26 000 asylum seekers

The Dutch Parliament has decided to give a limited amnesty to certain asylum seekers in the Netherlands. One such group are asylum seekers who have lived in the Netherlands for more than five years and who are still awaiting a final decision on their first application. This group amounts to 2100 asylum seekers. Amnesty has also been given to another 220 persons on humanitarian grounds. There has been significant public support for a wider amnesty from the civil society and others, apparently 64% of the Dutch population are in favour of such an amnesty.

During the coming three years the Dutch Government will thus return those asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. These are the asylum seekers whose cases were tried before the new Aliens Act came into force, i.e. before 1 April 2001. Voices have been raised concerning the effects of this decision, one being that many of these persons will be living in the streets without any social support, another that they will be moving to other European countries. The Dutch Refugee Council has expressed concern that the government might have problems convincing both the person in question as well as their countries of origin to cooperate in their deportation.

Dutch Refugee Council

Return of Iraqi asylum seekers

The Dutch Minister for Integration and Alien Affairs has decided that Northern Iraq is safe enough to return people originating from this region to. Until now there has been a return moratorium for asylum seekers from this area. This ended on 1 February 2004.

NORWAY

Rules on fast track asylum procedure introduced

On 1 January 2004, Norway's immigration agency launched its so-called "48-hour rule". It calls for the examination of all asylum seekers from countries that Norway deems "safe" (such as Bulgaria, Poland and Ukraine) to be handled within 48 hours. If the asylum application is rejected, the applicant is immediately returned. Government Minister Erna Solberg from the Conservatives, who's in charge of immigration issues, is pleased with the development and is considering expanding it to apply to other countries as well. Immigration lawyers are worried, claiming the expedited rules threaten asylum seekers' legal rights. The Norwegian asylum seekers' advocacy group NOAS is also worried, fearing the expedited immigration rules will traumatize refugees coming from areas where there is civil unrest.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=721990

http://www.dagsavisen.no/kommentar/debatt/2003/12/770416.shtml

Migration News Sheet January 2004.

Return of Iraqi asylum seekers

Norway has decided that asylum applications from Iraq should be processed again, lifting the moratorium that has been in place for about a year. At the same time it was also decided that asylum seekers from Iraq who have received a final negative decision should be obliged to leave Norway.

RUSSIA

New Russian Passports

Soviet-era internal passports ceased to be valid documents for most citizens as of 1 January 2004, the Russian media reported. The only exceptions are for certain foreign citizens and stateless persons, such as citizens of former Soviet republics who have come to Russia and have received temporary residence permits. The latter have until 1 January 2006 to obtain new Russian passports. Holders of the old Soviet passports will face fines and will be unable to undertake legal transactions, buy train or airplane tickets, or receive pensions. According to newsru.com on 1 January, more than 125 million people have received the new passports. The Russian population is generally estimated at 145 million.

Skinheads blamed for race crimes in Russia

The number of skinheads in Russia has risen to more than 35,000 in the past two years as violent attacks on immigrants from former Soviet republics have risen, a human rights group says.

In one recent attack in February, a gang of skinheads stabbed to death Khursheda Sultanova, a nine-year-old girl from Tajikistan, as she walked home through St Petersburg with her father and an 11-year-old cousin. A few days later a man from the Caucasus was beaten to death in a St Petersburg railway station. Within hours of the roof falling in on a swimming pool in southern Moscow last Saturday night, killing 25, groups of skinheads swarmed through the area beating up members of ethnic minorities.

Ethnic discrimination against Chechens

There is widespread concern among Human Rights organisations regarding the increase in discrimination towards Chechens and Caucasians in Moscow following the metro bomb on 6 February. Concerns include an increase in racially motivated attacks, drafting of legislation in Moscow aimed at combating “illegal migration” and the attempted organization of public meetings to “Cleanse Moscow of Chechen bandits!”

See Amnesty International’s press release of 18 February: “Out of control: Anti-Chechen sentiment in Moscow post-metro blast” http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR460072004?open&of=ENG-RUS

Chechnya: Situation Precarious for IDP Return

Jan Egeland, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, undertook a mission to the Russian Federation that included visits to IDP tent camps in Ingushetia and a temporary accommodation centre for returning IDPs in Grozny, Chechnya. UN sources report that Egeland found the humanitarian situation in Chechnya to be “precarious, marked by poor security and a serious lack of housing.” At a UN press briefing, Egeland noted ongoing concern regarding forced return of IDPs in Chechnya and reported that Government officials had assured him that IDPs in the remaining 10 camps in Ingushetia would not be forcibly returned. Concerning the potential return of the UN to Chechnya, he commented that although the permanent return of international staff was not likely at this time, due to ongoing problems of insecurity, day visits to the area and UN humanitarian efforts through local partners would be increased.

SPAIN

Tougher Aliens Act has come into force

On 22 December 2003, the new Aliens Act came into force. Some NGOs have already petitioned the national Ombudsman to lodge a complaint against the new law for being unconstitutional. One of the positive aspects of the new Act is that third country nationals who come to Spain can obtain a three-month visa while they seek employment, but there are also several limiting provisions in the Act. Two of them have been subjected to extensive criticism. One such criticised provision concerns new obligations imposed on land, air and sea carriers. These transporters must inform Spanish authorities responsible for immigration, of data concerning their passengers. This control data must include the name of each passenger, their date of birth, nationality and passport number or the number of any other travel document. Carriers failing to fulfil these criteria face a fine of up to 6 000 Euros per passenger in addition to being liable for payment of repatriation costs.

Migration News Sheet, January 2004.

SWEDEN

Deportation of Iranian homosexual

Behroz Kiani, a seventeen-year-old boy is to be sent back to Iran after having his application for asylum rejected by the Swedish Migration Board and the Aliens Appeal Board. According to the Aliens Appeal Board, Kiani qualified neither for refugee status nor protection on humanitarian grounds. The practice since 1998 in Sweden in these cases is that only homosexual Iranians who openly manifest their sexuality, are qualified for protection in Sweden. In Kianis case, the Aliens Appeal Board considered that there was nothing to indicate that the Iranian authorities knew of Kianis homosexuality and there was, therefore, no impediment to sending him back.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=230121

Return of Iraqi asylum seekers

On 7 November 2003, the Swedish Migration Board announced that decisions on Iraqi asylum seekers would be resumed. Asylum seekers of Kurdish origin as well as applicants who have been in the system for a long time will be given priority. However, there will be no forced returns to Iraq at this time. The Migration Board is planning to rule on certain landmark cases in the near future. This may include the possibility that the practice of granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors be changed.

Migration News Sheet, December 2003

Restricted entry for workers from new EU member states

At the end of January, the Swedish Prime Minister announced that Sweden will restrict the entry of workers, coming from the 10 new EU member states. The basis for this restriction is fear of exerting further pressure on the welfare system. As of now, all EU Member States, except Britain and Ireland, have imposed restrictions on the entry of workers from the 10 accession states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1135832,00.html

SWITZERLAND

Return of Iraqi asylum seekers

On 30 January 2004, the Federal Office for Refugees announced that the moratorium on decision making and execution of removal orders for asylum seekers from Iraq has been lifted. The process had been suspended since March 2003. Those granted refugee status and temporary admission will not generally be reviewed. The earliest deadline for return will be May 2004.

Anti-asylum hard-liner to head Justice Ministry

Christopher Blocher, the leader of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, has taken on the post of Justice Minister and is now consequently responsible for immigration. The People’s Party emerged as the biggest party ahead of the Social Democrats at the October Parliamentary elections, making it possible for Blocher to demand a seat in the four-party coalition government. Before the election, Blocher’s party took out a full-page newspaper ad criticizing “pampered criminals, shameless asylum seekers and a brutal Albanian mafia”. The UNHCR condemned the campaign as “some of the most nakedly anti-asylum advertisements by a major political party that we’ve seen in Europe to date”. The People’s Party put forward a proposal last year “against abuse of the right to asylum”, which was opposed by 50.1 percent of voters and favored by 49.9 percent. If the proposal had been passed, refugees arriving through any country generally considered free of persecution would be automatically expelled.

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/news > world news

UNITED KINGDOM

Law lords allow refugees to live where they choose

Asylum seekers have the right to seek council housing in the area of their choice once granted the right to settle, five law lords ruled on 5 February 2004. Asylum seekers are forcibly dispersed to cities across Britain when they first arrive in the country, but this does not mean they have to stay in that city if they are granted asylum and become refugees, law lords have ruled. Two families brought up the case after having been prevented from seeking accommodation in London.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/9390.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1142232,00.html

http://www.asylumsupport.info/housingrights.htm

Damages awarded to asylum seeking mother

An asylum seeker is to get damages from the Home Office after a High Court judge ruled on 21 January 2003 that her detention for six months with her young daughter while they fought for asylum was unlawful. Mr Justice Collins said that the refusal to release the mother and her two-year-old daughter was “manifestly” contrary to Home Secretary David Blunkett’s own policy, which states that detention involving families should be a last resort and for as short a time as possible. The judge said: “Since there was evidence that certainly the daughter’s and probably the mother’s health was being adversely affected by detention, the failure to release becomes the more inexplicable.” http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2434844

Visa requirements ended for Slovaks

On 18 December 2003, the requirement for Slovak nationals to have a visa to enter the United Kingdom was lifted. In May 2004, Slovakia, together with the nine other acceding countries will join the EU. Slovak nationals will have the right to seek employment in the UK and Ireland. The visa requirements were introduced in 1998 to stem the flow of Slovak asylum seekers belonging to the Roma minority. Migration News Sheet, January 2004.

10-year prison sentence for Albanian sex trader operating in the United Kingdom

On 22 December 2003, a 26-year old Albanian national was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for having smuggled 30 women from Moldova and Romania to Britain who were later forced into prostitution to “reimburse” their travel expenses. It is believed that he has earned more than £1 million. The young man arrived in the UK seven years ago and obtained political asylum by pretending to be a Kosovo Albanian.

Migration News Sheet, January 2004.

Safeguarding Britain’s benefit system when 10 new Member States accede to the EU

Britain may introduce some safeguards in respect of immigrant labour from the accession states once the new transitional measures are voted on. These safeguards include: a tightened ‘habitual residence’ rule preventing the workers in question from seeking unemployment and housing benefits within a certain period and the possibility that employers could be required to demand work permits from the workers of the acceding countries, although this is not something that is not needed from workers coming from one of the current 15 EU Member States. Such restrictions as the ones mentioned could be imposed if the immigrant numbers prove to be higher than the 12 000 - 13 000 a year predicted or if UK unemployment starts to rise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1150502,00.html

New Asylum and Immigration Bill

On 27 November 2003, the Asylum and Immigration Bill was introduced in Parliament. According to the British Refugee Council, there are four main areas which affect asylum seekers. First, the access to asylum appeals will be restricted, there will no longer be an opportunity for an asylum seeker to challenge the legality of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or the Home Office before a higher court. This new provision might lead to the United Kingdom being in breach of article 13 of the European Convention, providing no effective remedy. Second, penalties may be imposed on asylum seekers arriving in the UK without valid documentation. According to article 2 of the Bill, it will be a criminal offence for a person not to have valid travel documents when first interviewed by an immigration officer. Third, the use of the ‘safe third country’ concept will be extended. This could mean that an asylum seeker may be transferred to a safe third country for their case to be determined there. The British Refugee Council has expressed concern at the fact that there is no requirement for a link to exist between this third country and the applicant in question. Fourth, the access to basic state support for unsuccessful asylum applicants with dependent children will be withdrawn. This last point has been of particular interest to the media, since it could result in children being separated from their families and taken into state care.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights have also expressed concern on the new Bill. For their latest report, please visit http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/35/3502.htm

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/bill2003/2003bill_jan04.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/35/35.pdf

Return of Iraqi Kurds to Northern Iraq

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has announced that he intends to implement a compulsory repatriation plan to return Iraqi Kurds to Northern Iraq. The reason given is that he “would like those people to be able to contribute to rebuilding their country”. However, the US administration in Iraq does not consider any part of the country safe enough for compulsory returns at this time.

Migration News Sheet, December 2003

TURKEY

Agreement reached on return of Kurds from Iraq

On 22 January 2003, Iraqi, Turkish and UNHCR officials agreed on the modalities of voluntary returns to Turkey from Iraq of up to 13 000 Turkish citizens (ethnic Kurds) who have lived in exile in Iraq since the early 1990s. Under the agreement the Iraqi authorities will ensure that the return is voluntary and that the refugees are not subjected to pressure. UNHCR will have full access to both the refugees still in Iraq as well as those returning to Turkey. The Turkish authorities also guaranteed that the refugees who voluntarily return to Turkey are free to return to their former places of residence or to any other place of their choice in Turkey.

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/print?tbl=NEWS&id=4010ff129

ECRE MATERIAL

ECRE’s Memorandum to the Irish Presidency

On 20 January 2004, in advance of the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA Council) that was held in Brussels on 22-23 January, ECRE issued its Memorandum to the Irish Presidency with an accompanying press release. This Memorandum outlines ECRE’s main recommendations on the items that will be on the EU agenda during the Irish Presidency's term. In its Memorandum, ECRE calls for the appalling flaws in the draft Directive on Asylum Procedures to be addressed. As the draft legislation currently stands, it would threaten the safety of refugees. The Memorandum to the Irish Presidency - Countdown for the Amsterdam Treaty deadline: ECRE’s Recommendations for a EU Asylum Policy - is available at

http://www.ecre.org/statements/memirpres.doc

Recommendations to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 22-23 January 2004 on the "Safe Third County" (STC) concept

On the occasion of the JHA Council on 22-23 January that as expected discussed the criteria and use of the 'safe third country' (STC) concept, including the idea of a so-'called 'Super Safe Third Country Concept’ for the European Union’s neighbouring countries (Articles 27, 28 and 28A of the current draft proposal for a Directive on Minimum Standards on Procedures in EU Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status), ECRE issued its Recommendations to the JHA Council on the 'Safe Third Country Concept’. In its Recommendations ECRE reiterated its concerns regarding the STC notion. ECRE has repeatedly expressed that the burden of proof regarding the safety of a third country for a particular asylum seeker lies entirely upon the country of asylum. Read ECRE’s Recommendations at

http://www.ecre.org/eu_developments/procedures/ECRE%20to%20JHA%20Council%20on%20STC%20-%20Jan%20041.doc

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN EU ASYLUM AGENDA

Qualifications Directive

The final decision on the draft proposal is still pending. Agreement on the directive is still blocked by Germany. The German government does not want to lift its reservations to the EC directive until the new national immigration law is adopted. However, it seems that the negotiations for the new German immigration law are now in their final stage; the next meeting of the German conciliation committee, which will take place on 27 February 2004, is expected to reach a conclusion, facilitating the reopening of negotiations at EU level. The Irish Presidency stressed that it wishes to try to obtain agreement on the Qualifications Directive within the timescale specified by the Amsterdam Treaty. At the JHA Council on 19 February 2004, where the directive was scheduled for discussion on the state of play, the Council noted that one delegation was not able to lift its general reservation on the directive and decided to postpone the examination of this proposal to its next meeting in March 2004.

Asylum Procedures Directive

This Directive was one of the key issues discussed at the JHA informal Council in Dublin from 22-23 January 2004 following the decision by the Italian Presidency at the November 2003 JHA Council meeting to hand over this instrument to the Irish Presidency. The Procedures Directive was tabled with a view to getting an orientation from Ministers on the ‘Safe Third Country Concept’, including ‘Super Safe Third Countries’. However, agreement has not been found on the criteria to define them. The Irish Presidency is now trying to work on compromise positions. Invited to take part in the debates, the United Nations High Representative for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, said that he was "less worried" after the meeting than when he had arrived. He considered that ministers appeared ready to apply the most restrictive criteria for defining a ‘safe third country’. Ruud Lubbers again appealed for the setting up of a common centre in the European Union to manage requests for asylum. ECRE issued recommendations to the JHA informal Council in which it focused on the ‘Safe Third Country Concept’. ECRE also called upon the JHA Council to reject the ‘Super-Safe Third Country Concept’.

The Procedures Directive was again discussed at the JHA Council meeting on 19 February 2004. According to official conclusions, the orientation debate focused on the question of appeals. In particular, Ministers discussed the three following issues: (a) whether the Directive should provide for derogations from the right to an effective remedy for a decision that is inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept and a decision not to examine a subsequent application further; (b) the applicant’s right to request a court or tribunal to decide whether he/she would be allowed to remain in a Member State, pending the outcome of an appeal or review, and (c) whether the Directive should prescribe the circumstances in which a Member State may remove an applicant before a court or tribunal has made a decision on any such request. However, it seems that no agreement could be reached. In the light of the debate, the Councils preparatory bodies will continue their work with a view to reaching an agreement within the time limit set by the Amsterdam Treaty (1 May 2004).

Framework Preparatory Action on Returns

The Commission is still working on the ‘proposal for a financial instrument on returns’, which it expects to adopt shortly. At the JHA informal Council in Dublin on 22-23 January 2004, Commissioner Antonio Vitorino announced that the Commission would spend 30 million EUR in 2005/2006 on policies for the mandatory and forced return of persons residing without authorisation in member States. This new financial instrument aims to complement the European Refugee Fund (ERF), which provides financial assistance for voluntary repatriation. Under this new financial instrument, Community funds may be spent as a priority on the integration of deportees, using the model developed for the repatriation of Afghan refugees. The European Commission intends first to test the result of this ‘pilot’ funding before proposing specific financial instruments for the returns policy. The 30 million EUR will be mainly managed by the Border Management Agency, once it is operational. The EU Ministers will, however, have to define common criteria to execute expulsion decisions, before the European Commission will make the money available. In this context, the Benelux countries have already announced their intention to present ‘regional’ projects to return illegal immigrants to certain countries.

European Refugee Fund II

On 12 February 2004, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 (ERF II). The first ERF, from 2000 to 2004, launched Community financial solidarity to the tune of €200 million to support and encourage the EU Member States’ efforts to receive refugees and displaced persons and bear the consequences. In line with Article 63(2)(b) of the EC Treaty the aim of the proposal establishing the ERF for 2005-2010 is to express financial solidarity between the European Community and the EU Member States in respect of the reception of asylum seekers and the management of asylum procedures. It also covers: the integration of persons enjoying international protection in the EU and actions to promote the voluntary return of persons enjoying protection or asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected despite the fact that the new Community asylum legislation and enlargement will engender major structural changes. The broad lines of the European Commission proposal are as follows: (1) a gradual and substantial increase in the budget from 2008; the amounts proposed as a guide are €45 million in 2005, €50 million in 2006, €60 million in 2007 and €150 million annually between 2008 and 2010; (2) an emergency reserve of €10 million to be spread over the EU Member States if the temporary protection scheme in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons is launched on the basis of the Directive adopted in July 2001; (3) co-financing of three types of action in the EU Member States relating to: conditions for the reception of asylum seekers and asylum procedures, the integration of refugees and other persons enjoying international protection in the EU and the voluntary return of persons enjoying protection or asylum seekers whose applications are rejected. In ERF II these actions also cover persons enjoying international protection in the EU via a resettlement scheme after transfer from an initial host country outside the EU; (4) more strategic programming of support from the instrument, in which the European Commission should play a more important role, with due account for the adoption and implementation of the Community legislative framework for asylum policy; (5) in the criteria for the distribution of funds between EU Member States, account will be taken not only of the target population received by each of them but also of the need to make investments to make national asylum systems more efficient, in particular in the new EU Member States. In addition to an amount determined in proportion to the number of persons received, a fixed amount of €300 000 per EU Member State (€500 000 for the new EU Member States in the first three years) is proposed; (6) project programming and life-cycles allowing better use to be made of results through multi-annual strategies based on a process of concerted action between national partners and between EU Member States and the European Commission. Read the proposal in full at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2004/com2004_0102en01.pdf

Long-term Residents Directive published in Official Journal

On 23 January 2004, the Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L 16, Volume 47). The directive is designed to grant an EU status of long-term residence to third-country nationals who have legally resided for five years in the territory of an EU Member State. Refugees and persons enjoying subsidiary protection do not fall under the scope of this directive. EU Member States will have two years to apply the directive, once it is published in the Official Journal. Read the directive at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_016/l_01620040123en00440053.pdf

PRESIDENCIES OF THE EU

The Irish Presidency

Ireland took over the EU Presidency in January 2004. According to the Irish Presidency Working Programme ‘Europeans - Working Together’, the Irish Presidency will continue to strengthen the ‘Area of Freedom, Justice and Security’. A key focus of the Irish Presidency, building on what has already been achieved, will be to take forward work on those measures specified by the Treaty of Amsterdam and the European Council in Tampere. In particular, the Irish Presidency will seek to resolve outstanding issues on the Asylum Qualifications and Procedures Directives so that the May 2004 deadline established by the Amsterdam Treaty for the adoption of asylum legislation can be met. It will also take forward work on the proposal making provision for the continuation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2009. The Irish Presidency proposes to look into new responses to the asylum question. It will, in accordance with the mandate of the Thessaloniki European Council, take forward discussion on further reinforcing asylum procedures in order to make them more efficient as well as discussing means of better managing the entry of persons in need of international protection into the EU, including protection in the regions in a manner consistent with the obligations under the Geneva Convention. The Irish Presidency will prioritise actions aimed at combating illegal immigration while also taking forward measures intended to facilitate the development of a common approach to legal migration. Work on combating illegal immigration will be taken forward on a number of fronts. Implementation of the comprehensive plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings will be prioritised. Implementation of the Return Action Programme will likewise continue to be taken forward as will work on the proposed Council Decision to enable Community financial support to be provided to that programme. Priority will be given to the development of a common policy on readmission. With regard to legal immigration, work will be progressed on the proposed directives on the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of study, vocational training, and voluntary service and research in the context of the development of a common immigration policy will continue. With regard to external borders and visas, the European Council has emphasised the need to take forward work on the development of the Visa Information System (VIS). Priority will accordingly be given to the relevant Commission proposals. Work will also be taken forward on the related issue of biometric identifiers for visas and other purposes. Work on the Regulation for the establishment of a European Borders Agency, whose task will include coordinating and supporting the efforts of the Border Services of EU Member States in combating illegal immigration, will be progressed in keeping with the mandate of the Brussels European Council of December. According to the Multiannual Strategic Programme adopted by the European Council at its meeting on 12-13 December 2003, the European Council in June 2004 is expected to start the evaluation of the achievements of the Tampere process, leading to the launch of a broader post-Tampere agenda. The official website of the Irish Presidency can be found at http://www.eu2004.ie/.

The official working programme of the Irish Presidency ‘Europeans – Working Together’ can be found at

http://www.eu2004.ie/templates/document.asp?sNavlocator=5,236&content_id=1499&letter=E

Future Presidencies of the EU

Dutch Presidency: 1 July – 31 December 2004

Luxembourg Presidency: 1 January – 30 June 2005

British Presidency: 1 July – 31 December 2005

Outcome of the JHA Council on 19 February 2004

On 19 February 2004, the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers met in Brussels to discuss, among other issues, the following items: (1) Procedures Directive: According to official conclusions, the orientation debate focused on the question of appeals. In particular, Ministers discussed the three following issues: (a) whether the Directive should provide for derogations from the right to an effective remedy for a decision that is inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept and a decision not to examine a subsequent application further; (b) the applicant’s right to request a court or tribunal to decide whether he/she would be allowed to remain in a Member State, pending the outcome of an appeal or review, and (c) whether the Directive should prescribe the circumstances in which a Member State may remove an applicant before a court or tribunal has made a decision on any such request. However, it seems that no agreement could be reached on these issues. In light of the debate, the Councils preparatory bodies will continue their work with a view to reaching an agreement within the time limit set by the Amsterdam Treaty (1 May 2004). (2) Qualifications Directive: The Council noted that one delegation (Germany) was not able to lift its general reservation on the Qualifications Directive and decided to postpone the examination of this proposal to its next meeting in March 2004. (3) Immigration liaison officers network: Following the general approval reached on 2-3 October 2003 and after the European Parliament had delivered its opinion, the Council adopted without debate the Regulation on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network. According to this Regulation, "immigration liaison officer" means a representative of one of the Member States posted abroad by the immigration service or other competent authorities in order to establish and maintain contacts with the authorities of the host country with a view to contributing to the prevention and combating of illegal immigration, return of illegal immigrants and the management of legal migration; (4) Adoption of the Regulation establishing a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in asylum and migration matters: Following the approval of the European Parliament's first reading amendments, the Council adopted without debate a Regulation establishing a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum, in the framework of the co-decision procedure. This Regulation gives a legal framework as well as increased appropriations to the preparatory actions, which, in the framework of a partnership with the countries and regions of origin and transit in relation to migration and asylum, have been conducted since 2001 under the budgeted line B7-667. The multi-annual programme established by the Regulation will cover the period 2004 to 2008. The financial framework for the implementation of this Regulation is set at EUR 250 million, of which EUR 120 is for the period until 1 December 2006. It is designed to provide a specific additional response to the needs of third countries in effectively managing all aspects of migratory flows. See full conclusions at

http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/NewMain.asp?LANG=1 (click on Council meetings/Justice and Home Affairs)

Outcome of the JHA informal Council on 22/23 January 2004

The key issues discussed at the JHA informal Council were the Procedures Directive and EU return policy: (1) Procedure Directive: The Irish Presidency, in seeking to resolve outstanding issues, selected the ‘Safe Third Country Concept’ for an orientation debate among ministers. The intention was to explore possible approaches to this issue for the purpose of agreeing the directive; (2) EU return policy: Following the informal JHA meeting the Irish Presidency emphasised that the successful implementation of a common return policy at EU level is the key to an efficient and effective immigration and asylum policy across the European Union. During the Council meeting, EU Ministers had a positive exchange, which identified practical ways to move forward on the implementation of a common return policy at EU level. The focus of the debate was on the practical implementation of various return related measures. There was general agreement among the Ministers to continue and expand joint flight operations for the purpose of removals. The importance of progressing Community Readmission Agreements was stressed. There was also consensus on the merit of an evaluation of the use of the EU Travel Letter. During the JHA informal Council, Commissioner Vitorino announced a financial provision of €30 million in the 2005/2006 budget period to fund a Framework for Preparatory Action on Returns. He also reported on the negotiations of readmission agreements with Morocco, Turkey, Ukraine and Russia which are not yet finalised. Apart from these two issues, the discussions also focused on (3) action against organised crime and (4) the framework decision on a European evidence warrant as well as small claims.

Readmission of persons residing without authorisation

Proposal for a readmission agreement with Albania

On 12 February 2004, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Decision on the signing and conclusion of a readmission agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Albania (COM (2004) 92 final), which is the result of negotiations between the European Commission, on behalf of the European Community, and Albania that started in May 2003 and concluded in November 2003. The European Commission proposals constitute the legal instrument for the signature and conclusion of the agreement by the Council. The European Parliament will have to be formally consulted on the conclusion of the agreement. Read the proposal in full at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2004/com2004_0092en01.pdf

Readmission clause included in the Memorandum of understanding between the EC and China

On 12 February 2004, the European Community (EC) and the China National Tourism Administration signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the EC and China on visa and related issues concerning tourist groups from the People's Republic of China (COM (2003) 790 final). Article 5 of this Memorandum includes provisions for the readmission of possible Chinese over-stayers. The new accord is expected to enter into force before the summer. Read the European Commission proposal at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0790en01.pdf

Readmission agreement with Hong Kong published

On 24 January 2004, the Council Decision 2004/80/EC of 17 December 2003 concerning the conclusions of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L 17, Volume 47). For further information see

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_017/l_01720040124en00230024.pdf

Readmission clause included in Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreements with Central American countries and the Andean Community

On 15 December 2003, the European Union signed Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreements with several Central American authorities and the Andean Community. The new EU/Central America and EU/Andean Community Political Dialogue and Co-operation Agreements will build on and replace the existing 1993 Framework Co-operation Agreements with Central American countries and the Andean Community. Both agreements will enter into force after ratification by all parties to the agreement. The new agreements extend the scope of the political dialogue between the European Union and the two American regions to cover, inter alia, conflict prevention, good governance, migration and counter-terrorism. Article 49 of both agreements refers to cooperation on immigration and includes a readmission clause. Article 49 also specifies that the EU/Central American countries and the EU/Andean Community agree to conclude, upon request and as soon as possible, agreements imposing specific obligations on the signing parties to the agreements on readmission, including obligations concerning the readmission of nationals of other countries and stateless persons. Read these agreements in full at

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/andean/doc/pdca_1203_en.pdf(EU/Andean Community)

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ca/pol/pdca_12_03_en.pdf (EU/Central America)

Readmission clause included in association agreement with Syria

On 9 December 2003, the European Commission concluded an association agreement with Syria, which includes a readmission clause that compels Syria to take in persons residing without authorisation in EU Member States who have travelled through its territory before arriving in EU Member States. The formal initialling is expected, once approval of the proposal is given by the EU Council of Ministers (its technical groups will have to both verify compliance with the European Commission's negotiations mandate and the concessions made by other countries in the region, whilst taking into account specific elements in relations between the EU and Syria). The agreement will then be signed.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Commission’s communication: biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom security and justice in the European Union (second half of 2003)

The European Commission has established a scoreboard, which is updated every six months, to review progress on the creation of the European Union's area of freedom, security and justice. In a communication presented in January 2004 concerning the biannual update of the scoreboard, the European Commission reviewed the progress made in the second half of 2003 in the following areas: (1) asylum; (2) legal immigration; (3) borders; (4) Schengen Information System; (5) illegal immigration and expulsions; (6) readmission agreements; (7) trafficking of human beings; (8) drugs trafficking and (9) legal cooperation in civil matters. In its communication, the European Commission states that the assessment of European legal cooperation in asylum and immigration matters remains mitigated, although definite progress has been made in these areas. It also states that although unanimity is acceptable, Member States continue to find it difficult to make concessions or to give up elements of their sovereignty, particularly in the area of asylum and immigration. It urges Member States to step up their efforts to meet the five-year deadline set by the Amsterdam Treaty and the Tampere conclusions for creating the first bases for policies in the field of justice and home affairs. The European Commission proposes presenting a communication in June, which will give a global and objective assessment of achievements and possible failures in this area. To this end, it will launch on-line consultation with citizens and interested parties. In the same document, it will propose its first guidelines for the second phase of creating the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - the Tampere II agenda - using the constitutional Treaty or its draft as a base, if Member States have not in the meantime resolved their differences at the Intergovernmental Conference. Read the Commission’s communication in full at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0812en01.pdf

Commission wants the SIS II to include biometrics

The Commission adopted on 11 December 2004 a communication on the future of the second generation Schengen information system (the so-called 'SIS II'), in which it states that the SIS II should include biometrics. The second generation SIS will be a new version of the existing Schengen database, extending its use to the accession countries and enabling the addition of new functions. The current SIS is only able to deal with 18 states at most. It consists of national databases of 'wanted persons' in each EU country, with the central database managed by the French administration in Strasbourg. In the communication adopted on 11 December, the Commission recommends: (1) storing biometric data, such as digital photographs and fingerprints on SIS II; (2) setting up an agency to manage the system and (3) integrating SIS II into the same technical architecture as the future Visa Information System (VIS) while keeping the two sets of data separate. Twenty-eight million euros are to be allocated from the EU budget to develop SIS II, nearly twice what was initially forecast. Read the Communication in full at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0771en01.pdf

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EP annual debate on the area of freedom, security and justice

The European Parliament’s (EP) annual debate on liberty, security and justice, at which the EP takes stock of progress in relation to the European Union's goal of achieving a common EU asylum and immigration policy, was held on 11 February 2004. The debate was based on an EP resolution presented to the Council and the Commission by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee). In the field of immigration and asylum policy MEP Ribeiro e Castro, the draftsman of the EP's resolution, recalled that over the last five years major achievements have been made in the creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. He called for a new European Council meeting exclusively devoted to Justice and Home Affairs, a so-called 'Tampere II', to take place under the Dutch Presidency that would enable the Council to draw up a new Justice and Home Affairs agenda for the coming years. This summit would follow up on the Tampere European Council of 1999, which set the agenda for the creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the first place. He emphasised the need to run an information policy in this area, based on sending a message of confidence to the public. Finally, he called for more 'communitarisation' of Justice and Home Affairs issues, such that the institutions would take more decisions together rather than each Member State making decisions independently. The Chairman of the LIBE Committee, called for the Tampere II agenda to be built around three key ideas: (1) legitimacy (protecting citizens rights and freedoms), (2) effectiveness (improving the decision-making process) and (3) solidarity (favouring European integration over national interests). In addition, most MEPs argued that legal immigration should be given a higher priority on the EU agenda, since the increase in trafficking in human beings and illegal immigration is closely linked to the absence of legal avenues for migrants who want to enter the EU for work purposes. In this context, the Irish Minister of Justice, Mr. Mc Dowell pointed out that 2003 saw the adoption of the first legal instruments in the area of legal immigration - the Directive on the right to family reunification and the Directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents. He added that the Council intends to progress work on the Directives on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of study, vocational training and voluntary services and for the purpose of research. Further, the Irish Minister mentioned that progress has also been made in the area of illegal immigration and that the strengthening of border controls against illegal immigration will continue to be a Council priority in 2004. Read the EP resolution at

http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/libe/20040209/513138en.pdf

Awarding of EP’s Shakarov prize to the UN

The Shakarov prize for freedom of thought was awarded to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at a formal sitting during the UN Secretary General's visit to the EP in Brussels on 29 January 2004. The Sakharov Prize was first awarded in 1988 and is conferred upon individuals or organisations that have made a decisive contribution to the fight for human rights. The prize, named in honour of Andrei Sakharov, gives recognition to those who have fought for human rights and fundamental freedoms and against oppression and injustice. The Secretary General of the UN received the prize on behalf of all the staff of the United Nations, with a view to commemorating Sergio Vieira de Mello and the many other UN officials who have lost their lives in the service of world peace. The President of the EP Pat Cox welcomed Kofi Annan and a number of former winners of the prize who were also present at the formal sitting. During his speech, Mr Cox expressed Parliament's strong belief in the value and worth of the United Nations, its Charter and multilateralism. Mr Cox also pledged that Parliament would be a reliable regional partner for the United Nations and what it stands for. Addressing the EP upon receipt of the prize, Kofi Annan called on the European Union to uphold the guarantee of protection to refugees as the Union moves towards harmonisation of asylum. He said people forced out of their homes are the collective and moral responsibility of the international community under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Mr Annan appealed to the European Union to help strengthen the capacity of poor countries to provide protection and solutions for refugees, pointing out that seven out of 10 refugees seek refuge in developing countries, where resources are "far more stretched and human rights standards more uneven." He said the EU should open up greater avenues for legal migration to alleviate the burden on asylum systems. The Secretary-General stressed that the asylum system in Europe needs the resources to process claims fairly, quickly and openly, so that refugees are protected and solutions found for them. During his speech, Mr Annan also said European states should move forward towards a system of joint processing and sharing of responsibilities. For further information see

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+PRESS+TW-20040128-B+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S#SECTION1

Read Koffie Annan’s speech at http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=757

EP Report on Human Rights in the EU - Seminar on Fundamental Rights in the EU

The LIBE Committee held a public seminar on 21 January 2004 on the human rights situation in the EU in 2003. The aim was to hear the views of human rights experts as part of the preparation for Parliament's annual report on the human rights situation within the EU, that overviews the compliance of Member States with selected provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Arts.18 and 19 on the right to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement. The Rapporteur, Ms Boumediene-Thiery, said her report would focus on vulnerable groups such as the Roma and Sinti, the disabled and refugees and immigrants. ECRE’s EU Representative, María-Teresa Gil Bazo expressed her support for some key points in the draft Resolution. However, she called for the abolition of the concept of ‘super safe third countries’ to which asylum seekers could be expelled without having their applications examined. This message was later completed with the recommendations made by ECRE to the EP for amendments to the draft report. Dick Oosting, Director of the European section of Amnesty International, said that human rights abuses did occur in EU Member States and that the Council often does not react to Amnesty International's reports on the human rights situation in EU Member States. Mr Oosting rejected the Council's reasoning that human rights were a national competence and described the EU's human rights policy as "a building site, not a blueprint". Comparing different EU Member States, Georgina Vaz Cabral, legal advisor to the Paris-based Committee Against Modern Slavery, told those present that human trafficking was a relatively new phenomenon in some EU Member States while in others it had been punishable for a long time. Representing the UNHCR, Madeline Garlick said that her organisation was concerned about the European directive on asylum procedures currently being discussed in the Council. Her particular worries were the concept of "safe countries" and the fact that the lodging of an appeal would no longer suspend the expulsion of asylum seekers. While supporting the plan to protect refugees in their own region, Ms Garlick explained that this measure could not replace the existing asylum procedures in the EU Member States. Other speakers also voiced concern about the direction European asylum policy was taking. Catherine Teule of the International Federation for Human Rights remarked that minimum protection was becoming the rule. There was a common concern that racist violence had increased in the Member States since 11 September 2001. Stephen Jakobil, Director of Fair Trials Abroad, suggested appointing a Commissioner for fundamental rights in the European Commission. He added that there had been no change from previous years as regards the rights of third country nationals put on trial in the EU. Other issues, which were raised were the problem of data protection in connection with the EU/US agreement on passenger data and the differences between Member States' laws on citizenship and voting rights in local elections for third country nationals. Mrs Boumediene-Thiery's report is scheduled for adoption by the LIBE Committee on 17/18 March. Read the draft report in full at

http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/libe/20040121/519920en.pdf

EP adopts resolutions on the European Commissions communications on immigration

At the sitting of 15 January 2004, the EP adopted a resolution on the communication from the European Commission on immigration, integration and employment (COM (2003) 336). In this report, the EP shows a preference for controlled immigration and asks for improved dialogue with countries of origin. In the report, the EP also states that an active policy of recruitment and admission for vacant jobs for pre-determined professional groups (green cards) is needed, rather than a more random approach. The EP, stressed the various criteria to be taken into consideration to step up the integration of residents from third countries and called upon EU Member States to get to know other cultures better, in education and public life (politics, employment market, public services). It called for voting rights in local elections and European elections for immigrants residing legally in the EU. The EP has also adopted a resolution on the communication from the European Commission to the EP and the Council in view of the outcome of the European Council of Thessaloniki on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking in human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents (COM (2003) 323). In this context, the EP expressed that the fight against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings should not include a repressive policy towards illegal immigrants but should target traffickers and employers benefiting from the situation. In its adoption of this report the EP approved the conclusions worded by the European Council at its meetings in Tampere, Brussels and Thessaloniki, and the legislative package presented by the European Commission. It confirmed its support for the creation of a European border-guard, and took note of the European Commission's proposal to create an operational Community structure to be applied in order to reinforce co-operation in the field of external border protection. The EP declared itself against the creation of a border-control agency. It approved the Council's decision to ask EU Member States to notify it of legal immigration quotas, on the basis of which a Community-level definition of a common position to negotiate re-admission agreements would be possible. Read the EP reports at

http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=PDF&TYPE=PV2&FILE=p0040115EN.pdf&LANGUE=EN

CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY

The main areas of disagreement among EU Member States are the future voting system and the size of the future European Commission. The smaller countries raised the issue of equality, fearing that the Constitution might favour the larger EU Member States. With so much division, the European Council on 12-13 December 2003 did not manage to obtain agreement, so that negotiations are now continuing under the Irish Presidency. The Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern reiterated his intention to push for an "earliest possible agreement" on the EU Constitution. A further step in Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) talks was made on 26 January 2004 when the EU foreign ministers met on the margins of the General Affairs Council for an hour-long lunch meeting to exchange views on the way to move forward with discussions on the EU Constitution. This informal meeting was the first since the collapse of the talks at the December European Council meeting. The ministers agreed that the upcoming round of EU enlargement as well as the EP in June 2004 would necessitate urgent progress in negotiations on the European Constitution. On the same occasion, European Commission President Romano Prodi said that he believed that a deal on the European Constitution could be reached in 2004 - and possibly in the first half of the year. EU Member States are aware that if the talks slide into late 2004, or 2005, the problems are only likely to become greater. At this time, a new European Commission will be finding its feet, while talks on future funding of the EU will have taken off. Under the Irish Presidency, discussions on the Constitution will mainly continue bilaterally with occasional full meetings for transparency. In January and February 2004, bilateral meetings were held, inter alia, with Germany, France and Spain; further exploratory meetings on possible steps forward in the IGC discussions will be held with all 25 EU Member States/ accession countries on the same basis. The Irish Presidency will present a progress report to the March European Council on how the IGC could be advanced.

EU ENLARGEMENT

Ratification of the EU Accession Treaty

The Treaty of Accession has to be ratified by the 15 current and the 10 future EU Member States before enlargement can take place on 1 May 2004. The heads of state and government of the 25 countries signed the Treaty, negotiated at the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002, in Athens on 16 April 2003. The European Parliament ratified the Treaty on 9 April 2003.

Ratification in the current 15 EU Member States:

Austria: Ratified by Parliament on 3 December 2003

Belgium: Ratified by Parliament on 4 December 2003