Constitutional court rules it unconstitutional to reject an asylum appeal on the grounds that an applicant is no longer in the country

In an application brought by three asylum seekers who had been transferred to Slovakia and the Czech Republic on Dublin II grounds, the Constitutional Court decided that it was unconstitutional to reject an appeal against the rejection of an asylum claim on the grounds that the applicant was no longer in Austria. The Court argued that if an applicant was deported because another state was responsible for the claim and subsequently a non-suspensive appeal against this decision was turned down simply on the grounds that the applicant had left the country, the appeal would be rendered meaningless.

Urteil Verfassungsgerichtshof, 24 February 2005, B1019/04-10, B1047/04-9, B1233/04-10

BELARUS

Decree combating trafficking in human beings signed

On 9 March, the President of Belarus signed a decree combating trafficking in human beings. The decree specifies punishment including prison sentences, property confiscation, and bans on holding some official positions for crimes related to human trafficking.

http://www.legislationonline.org

Embassy of the republic of Belarus to the United States of America, http://www.belarusembassy.org/news/

Belgium

Belgian Ministry of Interior announces regularisation of asylum seekers

Patrick Dewael, the Belgian Ministry of Interior announced that there would be a regularisation of all individuals who had applied for asylum before 1 January 2001 but had still not received a decision concerning their application. However this decision will apply only if they have a clear criminal record or if there aren’t any negative elements in their file.

This decision is based on the assumption that asylum seekers who have remained in Belgium for four years are, in effect, already integrated. Upon regularisation, asylum seekers will thus receive a residence permit for an unlimited duration giving them the right to work as well as the right to social security.

For info on the campaign:

<http://www.f-a-m.be>

<http://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be>

Policemen convicted for death of asylum seeker have not served sentence

The four policemen convicted of homicide in 2003 of a rejected Nigerian asylum seeker have still not been imprisoned or reprimanded. In fact, two of them are still serving in the police. The reason for their not being reprimanded is that the date of prescription for the offences had already been passed, even before their conviction.

Migration News Sheet, January 2005.

Bulgaria

Implementation of the Bulgarian Law to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings

The National Programme for combating trafficking in human beings provides assistance to victims of criminal activities as well as ways for their social reintegration.

It has a special focus on children as the programme engages with their education from early pre-school age.

http://www.legislationline.org/index.php?country=9&org=0&eu=0

DENMARK

Danish family formation rules challenged at ECJ

The Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination (DRC) has challenged Denmark’s so-called 24-years rule on marriages between Danes and foreigners or between foreigners. According to the rule, both partners must be more than 24 years old in order to be allowed to live together in the country. But even when they are, there are more hurdles to overcome: inter alia their overall connection to Denmark must be greater than their connection to any other state, including their home country. Exempt from these rules are persons who are at least 28 years old or nationals of the EU, Iceland or Norway. Moreover, a Dane who has lived with his/her foreign spouse in another EU country for at least six months is exempted from the rule, falling under EU instead of Danish law on entry and stay. The widely criticised rule aims at preventing sham marriages.

Migration News Sheet, February 2005.

France

France reaffirms opposition to north African holding camps

Jean-Pierre Raffarin, French Prime Minister, said France would remain opposed to the establishment of holding camps for asylum seekers to Europe, including North Africa. Although the Mediterranean has always been a crossroads of migration and a human melting-pot, it remains the responsibility of States to control migration flows, he said.

<http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=16386&name=France+firm+against+N+African+immigration+camps

National petition for asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected

France Terre D’Asile (FTDA) has denounced the status of thousands of asylum seekers whose applications have bee rejected living in France as “sans-papiers”. Highlighting the fact that an asylum procedure can last up to 18 months, FTDA has stated that the high number of persons whose applications are rejected proves that that there are injustices in the asylum procedure. FTDA also highlights that 90% of asylum seekers do not have access to reception centers and has called on the government to re-open asylum cases which have not had a fair procedure.

For more information on the petition: http://petition.cerf-ftda.org/petition.html

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=282502

Airplane passengers who prevented forceful deportation of Congolese face trial

A trial date has been set for a 54-year-old Italian anthropologist, Franco La Cecla, and two Frenchmen, including a Libération journalist, whose complaints prevented the forceful deportation of a Congolese migrant to Senegal on an Air Horizon charter flight on 15 December 2004 at Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris. They will face charges in Bobigny on 26 May 2005 for:

"having prevented the departure of the Air Horizon flight RN 322 from Paris to Dakar, encouraging passengers to get a person who had not been admitted into the [French] national territory and his escort to disembark, contravening security regulations and take-off procedures, causing a delay of 4 hours and 9 minutes."

This is not the first time that passengers objecting to the deportation of migrants on their flights end up facing trial as a result of their actions in France. On 2 September 2004, four passengers were acquitted after appearing in court facing charges of "obstructing the circulation of an aircraft and provoking disobedience [to figures of public authority]" in relation to a failed deportation attempt on a flight to Bamako (Mali) on 21 July 2004. The trial also saw the French airline Air France taking part as a plaintiff, claiming €10,000 in damages and interests. The court found that on both counts no one could be found individually guilty for the events leading to the charges. A further two trials in relation to failed deportation attempts started on 19 October and 3 November 2004 in Bobigny—the court whose jurisdiction includes Charles de Gaulle airport.

Statewatch, 14/02/2005, http://www.statewatch.org

Corriere della Sera, 7.2.2005

Germany

Asylum seeker numbers drop to 20-year low

At just over 35,000 applicants, the number of people seeking asylum in Germany in 2004 has dropped to 1984 levels, the Interior Ministry reported earlier this year. Of those, 960 applications were successful.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=16085

opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=422439144

http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_007/nn_161630/Internet/Content/Themen/AuslaenderFluechtlingeAsyl/DatenundFakten/Asylantraege__2004.html

Foreign Minister Fischer under pressure in ‘visa scandal’

Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer is under increasing pressure in the wake of the so-called ‘visa scandal’ on a very lax practice in granting visa to Ukrainians between 2000 and 2004. Under the Volmer-Erlass order, it only took 2-3 minutes to decide on each application and thus 2000 visas a day were issued. This practice was highly criticised and it was believed that German authorities had facilitated trafficking and illegality in Germany but also in all other European countries.

Likewise, the European Commission will put German visa policy under scrutiny to investigate if it is in breach of the Schengen agreement and it is not clear yet if ultimately Fischer will be forced to step down.

www.euobserver.com

www.faz.net

www.spiegel.de

Federal Constitutional Court declares denial of upbringing allowance to foreigners unconstitutional

On 29 December 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court made public a decision dated 6 July 2004, ruling as unconstitutional the denial of the allowance for bringing up children (‘Erziehungsgeld’) to third-country parents without residence permit. A Turkish woman, who had only an authorisation of stay, but has been living in Germany since 1990 and was permitted to work, brought the case. She gave birth to a child in 1993. The Federal Court said the denial of Erziehungsgeld to foreigners who have a work permit was unequal treatment without any legitimate grounds. Foreigners who have the right to work must also be entitled to receive the allowance in order to be able to devote more time to their children. The German Parliament has been given until 1 January 2006 to make the changes in legislation. Those concerned will subsequently be entitled to back payments.

Bundesverfassungsgericht, BvR 2515/95, also Press Release of 29 December 2004.

Migration News Sheet, January 2005.

Expulsion of Hezbollah representative under new Aliens Act

On 5 January 2005, a court in Düsseldorf dismissed the appeal against expulsion of a Hizbollah representative who has been living in Germany for 20 years on the basis of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. After his residence permit was not extended in 2003, he appealed against the expulsion order. His appeal was rejected under the new Aliens Act on the grounds that he was ‘a member of an organisation that supports international terrorism.’ The Lebanese national argued that Hizbollah was not on the EU list of terrorist organisations, but the court declared that Germany was not legally bound to this list and that Hizbollah was “waging a war with bomb attacks against Israel with inhumane brutality against civilians.”

Migration News Sheet, February 2005.

Greece

Asylum seekers denied non-emergency medical care

The Head of the Regional Health Care System for the northern Aegean islands, Panayota Handzopoulou, was criticised by an MP of the Coalition of the Left, Alekos Alavanos in early December. He disagreed with the instructions she gave doctors to refuse non-emergency medical care to irregular migrants and asylum-seekers. Her statement was justified under a criticised decree dated 13 July 2000. Under its terms, doctors and humanitarian organisations and all State hospitals have to refuse medical care to irregular migrants, treatment should only be offered in emergency situations and until the condition of the patient is stable. The MP argued that this decree only applied to undocumented migrants and not people who had lodged an asylum claim.

For more information:

Migration News Sheet, Monthly Information Bulletin on Immigrants, Refugees and Ethnic Minorities, January 2005, pp.9

Greeks demand the end of arbitrary detention and the release of child asylum detainees

A demonstration took place on 6^th March 2005 to ask for the end of arbitrary detention and the immediate release of all child detainees. Concern was raised about the Amygdaleza Centre, a former shelter for female victims of trafficking, which has been transformed into a removal centre for women facing deportation. The living conditions in the centre are considered not to meet the international standards on asylum and immigration laws.

http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/march/ak000009.html

Afghan asylum seekers tortured by police

Staff at an Athens police station are alleged to have beaten and tortured up to 60 Afghan asylum seekers, including children, after raiding a house to look for an Afghan national who had escaped from custody. Acts of ill treatment continued over the following days and pictures have been taken of the acts—probably inspired by the methods used by members of the US army in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The head of the Greater Athens police force has ordered an investigation and the Minister for Public Order declared that “the guilty parties will be found and punished.” Amnesty International has had concerns in the past about the impunity enjoyed by the Greek police, and their violation of human rights including torture and ill treatment. There is a very real danger that these practices may continue unless the Greek authorities take strict measures to make police officers accountable for their actions and ensure that they do not get away with committing human rights violations.

Amnesty International, Press Release, 22 December 2004, AI Index: EUR 25/016/2004

Migration News Sheet, January 2005

Ireland

Asylum seeker work ban 'costing millions of euros'

The Irish Government’s policy of denying asylum seekers the opportunity to work has drawn fierce criticism from the Irish Refugee Council, accusing Ministers of wasting millions of euros. Social welfare payments accounted for a significant portion of the €1.1 billion the council claims the Government have spent on asylum seekers over the past four years. According to the council, the money is paid to over 10,000 people, some of whom have been waiting on their asylum application for more than six years.

http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=127216964&p=yz7zy767x&n=127217724

Costs associated with the asylum process in Ireland

The Irish Refugee Council has welcomed the fact that some additional details are now becoming available (Irish Examiner, 13/12/2004) on how Ireland spends a high amount of money on, by international standards, a relatively small number of asylum seekers. The IRC states that it would be in everyone's interest to have full details of where exactly the money goes, who benefits directly from the expenditure as well as what abuse and waste there is.

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/press04/costs.html

Green Card System Planned for Skilled Workers

The Irish Government are setting up plans for a "green card" system that would replace the former system that enabled skilled migrants to work and bring their family. This would by then allow skilled migrant workers and their families from outside the EU permanent residency rights in the State whereas they had to renew their visa every two years before.

The green card would be made available to skilled workers from a range of areas in short supply, such as science and technology, engineering, the health service and the IT sector.

The decision to issue green cards will be left to the discretion of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mr Martin after he has made sure that workers would not become a burden on the State.

The Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0314/

Malta

Alleged ill treatment of asylum seekers must be investigated

According to a report received by Amnesty International, on 13 January 2005 about 90 people detained at Safi army barracks refused to re-enter the centre after an exercise period. They wanted to protest on their long detention and the lack of information given on their asylum claim. The protestors were said to be beaten and many of them were transferred to Hospital. Amnesty has called “for a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation” about these events in complete violation of basic human rights.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGEUR330012005

http://www.maltamedia.com/news/2005/ln/article_4820.shtml

UN blasts Maltese asylum policy

The UNHCR expressed concern in January about Maltese soldiers’ use of excessive force during a peaceful demonstration by asylum seekers and welcomed Malta's decision to hold an inquiry into the incident. It is said that Malta keeps asylum seekers in detention for about 18 months, which stands against the UNHCR guidelines on the use of detention. Therefore the UN agency repeated its call for the Maltese government to undertake a re-examination of its entire policy towards asylum seekers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4184393.stm

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/country?iso=mlt

The Netherlands

Dutch Cabinet agrees to departure moratorium for part of Somali

The Dutch Cabinet, acting on a proposal from Minister for Integration and Immigration Rita Verdonk, agreed to a suspension on the deportation of asylum seekers with Somali nationality who do not originate from Somaliland, Puntland or South Mudug. This was based on a decision given by the administrative jurisdiction department of the Council of State on 17 December 2004 concerning a Somali case.

The moratorium will be introduced on a temporary basis until 1 July 2005 pending a ruling on the merits in Somali actions before the European Court of Justice. The interim measures taken by the European Court on Somali cases in 2004 are a preliminary opinion and only provide a practical obstacle for returning them to their country of origin but will not result in any unlawfulness of the negative decision upon the request for asylum. It will therefore be possible to continue in the normal way on deciding asylum requests from Somalia.

http://www.justitie.nl/english/press/press_releases/archive/archive_2005//150205Dutch_Cabinet_agrees_to_departure_moratorium_for_part_of_Somalia.asp

Poland to enter EU open borders regime

Border controls will cease to operate on the western frontier of the largest of the EU’s new members, Poland, from October 2007. This means that Poles will be able to enjoy document-free travel within 13 EU countries, with the exception of the UK and Ireland. Entry into the Schengen group will, however, depend on Poland’s establishment of the SIS II framework and the satisfactory reinforcement of its own eastern borders with non-EU states.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=16213

Dutch nationals and foreigners required to carry ID cards

As from 1 January 2005, both Dutch citizens and foreigners are obliged to carry a document of identification (ID card, passport or drivers licence). The measure aims at improving security and combating crime. However, the Ministry of Justice declared there would be no identity checks unless there was specific reason, such as an offence having been committed.

Migration News Sheet, January 2005.

http://www.expatica.com, 4 January 2005

Two Afghan asylum seekers arrested on suspicion of war crimes and torture

In December 2004, the Dutch police arrested a 58-year-old Afghan asylum seeker on suspicion of having committed war crimes and torture during the times of the Communist regime in his country. Habibullah J. allegedly headed the interrogation unit of the Afghan military intelligence service (KhAD) at the time. He was arrested in a village near Utrecht, where he was living with his family. He had applied for asylum in 1996, but his request was turned down because he was suspected of having committed human rights violations. Already in October 2004 Hesamuddin H., former head of KhAD and Secretary of State Security had been arrested by the Dutch police. He also is suspected of having committed war crimes and torture.

Migration News Sheet, January 2005.

http://www.expatica.com, 1 December 2004.

PKK member not to be extradited

An appeal court in The Hague halted the extradition of a senior PKK member on 20 January 2005 on the grounds of the ongoing threat of torture in Turkish prisons, Migration news Sheet reports.

Migration News Sheet, February 2005.

http://www.expatica.com, 20 January 2005.

Spain

African migrants dumped on Spain's streets

The Spanish Government have placed undocumented African migrants who reached Fuerteventura, on charter flights to Madrid, Valencia and Murcia and has justified this by the fact that the Canary Islands do not have the necessary resources to cope with them. Some 8,516 such people were flown to Spain in 2004, turning up in towns and cities that had received no prior acknowledgment from Madrid.

The Spanish Government believes that about 800,000 immigrants enter the country every year. In a bid to resolve the status of long-term illegal workers, those who have worked for three years will be granted residence, a unilateral move at odds with European partners Germany and the Netherlands who have called for EU-wide measures to tackle the issue.

http://www.rense.com/general62/der.htm

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=606205

No more irregular migrants will be taken from Canary Islands and “dumped” on the mainland without informing the regional authorities

Migration News Sheet, February 2005, p. 7, Migration Policy Group.

http://www.migpolgroup.com

The Government’s plan to legalise migrants

The process of the government’s initiative to legalise clandestine immigrants started on 7 February 2005 and will last three months.

An estimated 800,000 foreigners living in Spain prior to 8 August 2004 and currently working illicitly will gain papers as long as they have an employment contract for 6 months or more.

http://www.iht.com/getina/files/221741.html

The human rights implications of the transfer of responsibility for immigration controls to third countries

An appeal concerning violations of the rights of would-be migrants was issued by SOS Racismo and the Associacion Pro Derchos Humanos de Andalucia (APDHA) on 17 February 2005. This was in response to the deaths of many people in camps and the continuous violent raids carried out by the Moroccan military in camps where sub-Saharan Africans wait to attempt to cross the border to Europe.

Both organisations have called for the stopping of such operations as well as the assurance that Africans will have the right to seek asylum. They also asked the UN to carry an investigation on the land borders of Ceuta and Melilla and the European authorities to take responsibility towards third countries.

For more information, check:

www.statewatch.org

www.sosracisme.org

www.apdha.org

Regularisation of illegal immigrants

Spain started a regularisation process for undocumented immigrants on 7 February 2005 for a period of three months. An estimated 800,000 foreigners will be able to apply for the regularization. Immigrants with a job contract and proof of residence for the past six months (i.e. prior 8 August) will be eligible for a one-year work permit and residency. An exception is made for agricultural workers, who are required to have only a three-month employment contract. Their employers will be responsible for making the application on their behalf before May 7. The measures are directly intended to mitigate the increased workload immigration and social security offices are due to face as a result of new immigration legislation. After the three-month period expires the Government intend to go after employers using unregistered labour with fines of up to £40,000.

Prior to 10 March 2005, 130,000 people had filed applications, the Spanish Work and Social Affairs Minister Jesus Caldera said. Roughly 33.5 per cent. of the applicants are from Ecuador, followed by Moroccans, Columbians and Romanians. Some 37 per cent. of the applications are from people who work in domestic households—making up the largest percentage.

Spanish Opposition parties and other European countries, namely Germany and the Netherlands, are already concerned about the knock-on effects on Europe as a whole. “This legalisation process will have consequences for the rest [of Europe] because immigrants will then be able to move on freely to France and Germany,” German Interior Minister Otto Schily told a meeting of EU Ministers. Consequently, the European Commission and the Presidency are calling for more information sharing and an early warning system on important decisions on migration and asylum policies taken by member states. Discussions were held at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting on 24 February 2005. A broad agreement on the principle of introducing such an early warning system was reached, but the Commission will have to submit the policy directions at the next JHA Council in April, so that a more concrete proposal for implementing such a system can be put forward at the JHA in June.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk, 7/02/2005

http://wwweuobserver.com, 11/02/2005 and 24/02/2005

Justice and Home Affairs Council, Press Release 11/02/2005

Luxemburg Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Press Release, 24/02/2005, http://www.eu2005.lu

http://www.expatica.com, 10 March 2005.

Order on the treatment of migrant minors repealed

On 26 November 2004, the new Spanish Fiscal General del Estado (General State Prosecutor, equivalent to an Attorney General) Cándido Conde-Pumpido issued order 6/2004, instructing prosecutors "on the legal treatment of unaccompanied migrant minors", which replaces previous order issued by his predecessor in 2003. The previous order instructed prosecutors to consider migrant minors who are over 16 as adults; not to grant them the status as "defenceless" (desamparo in Spanish, a legal status involving such factors as the absence of parents, or means of subsistence) unless exceptional circumstances apply; to decree their detention within 24 hours of their being identified unless exceptional circumstances apply; to apply for them to be returned to their "places of origin within the shortest possible delay"; and if the return could not be carried out within the first 48 hours, to have them detained in centres for minors. Furthermore, the order stressed that any appeals against an "administrative decision" to repatriate a "non-defenceless" minor would be screened, involving an authorisation by the chief prosecutor, who would submit a detailed report on the merits of the case to the Fiscal General del Estado.

The Fiscal General del Estado justifies his decision replace the 2003 order on the grounds that it has given rise to "doubts" and to "interpretations that are not in accordance with the general principle of the superior interest of the child… causing dysfunctions and problems insofar as the definition of the legal treatment applicable to these minors is concerned".

The new guidelines for prosecutors include the presumption that any migrant who is under 18 is a minor and that unless there is conclusive, documented evidence that a minor is independent, s/he is to be treated as a minor. Migrant minors identified by members of the national police or Guardia Civil in cases where they have not committed a criminal offence, must not be sanctioned "for any of the reasons envisaged in the Spanish immigration law, particularly those which may lead to expulsion or internment, and once their under-age status has been ascertained, they must be provided with all the means for their protection and care that minors, regardless of their nationality, enjoy under Spanish law. Thus, prosecutors are to issue orders to ensure that services for the protection of minors take charge of minors, or people believed to be minors, within the shortest possible delay. The order states that authorities must attempt to carry out the repatriation of minors, aimed at returning them to their family, but this repatriation is not to be considered "an absolute objective to be pursued by any means", but rather, it must not contravene any of the fundamental rights of children, including their rights to life, or to physical or psychological integrity. In certain cases, these considerations may result in a decision in favour of the child remaining in Spain. Finally, the special screening procedure introduced in 2003 with regards to possible appeals against repatriation orders filed by prosecutors is done away with; the appeals will follow normal procedures and norms, and the order explicitly states that prosecutors have the competence to appeal expulsion decisions.

Statewatch newsletter 14/02/05, http://www.statewatch.org

Instrucción 6/2004, de 26 de noviembre, sobre tratamiento jurídico de los menores extranjeros inmigrantes no acompañados, 26.11.2004.

Instrucción 3/2003, sobre la procedencia del ritorno de extranjeros menores de edad que pretendan entrar ilegamente en España y en quienes no concurra la situación juridical de desamparo.

Switzerland

Revision of asylum law in process

The debate on the revision of the Swiss Asylum Act, ongoing since 2001, is taking another turn towards curtailing protection. At present, Switzerland grants temporary humanitarian protection to persons fleeing civil war and to persons who have integrated themselves well after staying in Switzerland for several years. This status is insecure and stands below the standards of the so-called EU Qualification Directive which defines who can qualify for refugee status and other subsidiary forms of protection. Therefore, the Federal Council and the National Council proposed to improve it by granting the right to family reunion as well as better access to the labour market.

However, according to the Swiss Refugee Council areas of major concern remain such as the denial of access to asylum procedures to people who cannot produce a valid passport or ID card within 48 hours, the denial of social aid to all asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected and the non-recognition of non-state persecution under the Swiss asylum law

For further information:

http://www.fluechtlingshilfe.ch

http://www.osar.ch

Supreme Administrative Court orders canton to provide emergency assistance to rejected asylum seeker pending a final ruling

On December 28, the Swiss Supreme Administrative Court ordered the canton of Soleure to continue providing emergency assistance to a rejected African asylum seeker, pending his appeal. The man, who claims to be from Liberia, was to be expelled, but refused to cooperate with the authorities. The canton of Soleure eventually cut off all aid to pressure him to leave. In a similar ruling 25 January 2005, the court ordered the canton of Solothurn to provide subsistence to 15 rejected asylum seekers of African origin pending their appeals.

Migration News Sheet, January and February 2005.

United Kingdom

Labour policies have left asylum seekers socially excluded

The UK’s policy towards asylum seekers has been criticised following the publication of a report called “A more equal society? New Labour, poverty, inequality and exclusion” (see publication section). The Joseph Rowntree Foundation stated that while governmental policies are seeking to counteract poverty, the situation of asylum seekers has worsened. They are being segregated and denied all kinds of basic rights which stands in contradiction with the government’s review of policies.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/article.asp?liarticleid=47634&liSectionID=3&liParentID=2

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/default.aspx?contentid=1cfe96e2-a785-455e-ae2a-5c130d5014c7&id=1446184

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal – The Legal Aid Arrangements for Onward Appeals

Immigration Lawyers express “profound opposition” to legal aid arrangements for onward appeals.

In its response to the UK Government’s consultation on the legal aid for onward appeals, the Immigration Lawyers and Practitioners Association, ILPA, which represents more than 1,000 immigration law professionals, voiced its objection in principle to the retrospective test for funding, and denounced the proposals for a merits test that “differs that applied in other types of publicly funded immigration cases and other categories of law.” Citing the existing powers to punish the pursuit of cases unworthy of appeal, which the Legal Services Commission and judges hold, the ILPA argued that practitioners and clients need the security of knowing that their case will be funded, subject to the ongoing review of its merits. The organisation’s rejection of many of the proposals centred on new funding arrangements that would leave them intimidated by uncertainty, and reduce to the status of gambling their professional decisions about which cases to take.

http://www.ilpa.org.uk/submissions/DCAAITconsult.htm

Identity cards to help the Government remove asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected

In his New Year message to the British public, Tony Blair pledged to use the Identity Cards Bill currently before Parliament as a means to ensuring the integrity of Britain’s borders and the removal of asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. In a speech that remarked on the uncertainty that people feel about asylum and national security, Mr. Blair said that he hoped to see the Bill passed this year, and promised further proposals on asylum and immigration early in the New Year.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4135133.stm>

Government’s five-year plan for immigration and asylum

The UK Government has presented a plan for the reform of the immigration and asylum system aimed at strengthening border controls and cutting down asylum applications.

The plan states why the UK needs refugees and reaffirms the country’s commitments to its international obligations. It also addresses the different categories of people allowed to stay in the country from their arrival to a possible permanent settlement, the new decisions taken to tighten border controls as well as in-country controls, which include fingerprinting and electronic checks before and after entering the UK. It also deals with removal issues with an intention to increase the detention and the removal of asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. The plan includes the removal of child refugees without tracing their parents, as long as their safe removal to a home country agency or government can be guaranteed. Additionally, it plans to end the automatic right to settlement for adult immigrant with a limit placed on the number of family members who are able to join an individual granted a work a permit to live and work in the country, and a £200 fee to appeal against the denial of entry to family members.

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/news/press_releases/controlling_our_borders/five_year_strategy.Maincontent.0004.file.tmp/Immigration%20-%20final%20version.pdf

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/laws___policy/policy_instructions/apis/application_of_non0.html

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/applying/asylum_applications/unaccompanied_asylum.html

Conservative party proposals to withdraw Britain from the Refugee Convention

The Conservative party have announced proposals to withdraw Britain from the Refugee Convention. According to shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, the Convention prevents the British Government from taking immediate action to deport those whose claims are, “obviously not genuine”.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/article.asp?liarticleid=47828&liSectionID=22&sKeys=&liParentID=26

Deportations to Zimbabwe contested

The forced removal from Britain of Zimbabwean exiles continues in spite of the UNHCR’s concern over the security situation there and evidence of alleged interrogation and physical abuse upon return to Harare. Fears of exiles and relatives of exiles prompted more than 350 people to demonstrate against the resumption of the removal policy outside the Home Office in London early February. Acting on speculation from the Zimbabwe Information Minister about the reasons behind the return of the exiles, state security agents question them on the basis that they were trained in Britain to carry out intelligence gathering and other duties in the pursuit of regime change in Zimbabwe.

http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/february/ha000002.html

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/asylumbrit18.12225.html

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/2004/nov04/relea184.htm

Prevention of Terrorism Act adopted

After the longest parliamentary sitting for 99 years, lasting more than 30 hours, the Prevention of Terrorism Act was finally passed in the House of Lords and House of Commons on 11 March 2005—just in time to fill any gap in legislation caused by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 elapsing three days later. As reported, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act expired on 14 March 2005 as it was declared in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR by the Law Lords in December 2004. In an effort to comply with the ECHR, the Government had derogated from part of their obligations under article 5 of the ECHR. However, the Law Lords ruled by a majority of eight to one that indefinite detention discriminates on the grounds of nationality, as it applies only to foreign nationals suspected of terrorism—despite a comparable threat from terrorism suspects with UK nationality. The derogation from the ECHR is being challenged in the European Court (see below).

The new Prevention of Terrorism Act met fierce opposition in the House of Lords and has been widely criticised by human rights groups, mainly because of the controversial control orders, which fall under two main categories:

The first category of control order empowers the Government to impose strict restrictions short of full house arrest on individuals ‘involved in terrorism-related activity’ on the basis of ‘reasonable suspicion’. Measures may include curfews, electronic tagging, bans on internet and mobile phone use, mandatory Home Office permission to meet other persons and travel bans. Control orders may be imposed for twelve months and can be renewed an indefinite number of times. While the original proposal did not provide for judicial safeguards at all, now the measure has to be approved by a judge within seven days. However, the judge will not rule on the evidence presented, but only on the question of whether the Home Secretary has acted within his powers. Despite this limited judicial involvement, control orders remained controversial and the Lords unsuccessfully pushed to raise the standard of proof from ‘reasonable suspicion’ to ‘balance of probabilities’

The second category allows for even more far- reaching control orders, i.e. full house arrest, to be imposed by a High Court judge on request by the Home Secretary, subject to a fresh derogation from Article 5 ECHR. The judge will look at all the material on which the application for a control order is based, i.e. including secret evidence that cannot be used in court. The judge has to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case, applying the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof—still lower than the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard applied to criminal proceedings. The Government argued that at present they were unable to prosecute some terror suspects because evidence obtained by the Secret Services cannot be used in court. Yet the new Act does not relax the ban on intercepted evidence despite widespread support for such a measure.

Thus, the Government have responded to the Law Lord’s discrimination argument that ruled out the 2001 Act by taking even wider powers, applying to foreigners and British citizens alike. However, the problem remains that the measures permit the Executive to impose sanctions on suspects, amounting to deprivation of liberty without giving access to a fair trial or the evidence against them. It remains to be seen if control orders will stand up to scrutiny before the courts.

The other issue around which the debate centred was a one-year sunset clause demanded by the Lords. After the Government offered a compromise providing for the possibility of parliamentary review after one year, based on an independent report, and new draft legislation by the autumn, the House of Lords accepted the Bill, which came into force immediately.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050002.htm

Joint Committee on Human Rights: Prevention of Terrorism Bill, Preliminary Report, Ninth Report of Session 2004-05, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/61/61.pdf

Joint Committee on Human Rights: Prevention of Terrorism Bill, Tenth Report of Session 2004-05, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/68/68.pdf

Human Rights Watch: Commentary on Prevention of Terrorism Bill, Briefing Paper, 1 March 2005,

The Guardian, 8 March and 12 March 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk

The Independent, 12 March 2005.

A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-1.htm

UK terror laws challenged before European Court of Human Rights

Suspects detained at UK’s Belmarsh prison and Broadmoor high security hospital have launched a case at the European Court of Human Rights that could wreck the government's plan to replace detention in prison with house arrest. The case challenges the policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial. By questioning the assumption that terrorism poses an emergency threatening the life of the nation, it could also strike at the heart of the house arrest proposals. One of the UK's foremost human rights QCs, David Pannick, who is representing the civil rights group Liberty in the Strasbourg case, has advised in a legal opinion that the prospects of convincing European judges that the life of the British nation is not threatened by terrorism are "very strong". That would be potentially devastating to the home secretary's plans to introduce executive house arrest for both British and foreign terror suspects. The UK Government can only do so having opted out of the European convention on human rights following the 11 September attacks in the US, and in turn he can only do that on the grounds that Britain faces a state of emergency.

If given priority, the case could come to Court in a few months. A spokesman for the Strasbourg court could not say whether the case would get priority. No other European state has derogated from the ECHR in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Guardian, 7 February 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk

Islamic Jihad suspect released from indefinite detention

On 31 January 2005, an Egyptian asylum seeker known only as ‘C’, who had been in indefinite detention because he was suspected to be a leading member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and being in contact with potential terrorists, was suddenly released without conditions. According to the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, ‘the weight of evidence in relation to C at the current time does not justify continuance of the certificate (as a terrorist suspect)’. C had been granted refugee status in 2000, then detained in December 2001 under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The law allowed detention without trial of foreign terror suspects who could not be deported. On security grounds, C. was never informed of the evidence held against him. In Egypt, he had been sentenced in absentia to 15 years imprisonment for trying to recruit army officers to a terrorist group. In a press release, Amnesty International said: “This man’s release only underscores the arbitrariness and secretive nature of the draconian measures currently being used to detain people without charge in this country.” The 2001 Act expired on 1 March 2005 due to a ruling by the Law Lords, who declared it in breach of human rights obligations (see above).

Amnesty International Press Release, 1 February 2005, http://www.amnesty.org

Migration News Sheet, February 2005

Liberty Newsletter, Spring 2005, http://www.liberty-human-rights.org

The Guardian, 1 February 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk

Court orders release on bail of remaining terror suspects in Belmarsh prison

On 11 March 2005, SIAC ordered the immediate release of an Algerian terror suspect known only as A, on condition he wear an electronic tag. Later, SIAC also ordered the release on bail ‘on principle’ of the remaining eight foreign terror suspects who had been detained infinitely. The detainees spent more than three years in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons and Broadmoor hospital without trial under the 2001 Anti-terrorism and Security Act, which expired on 14 March 2005 (see above). An eleventh detainee, know as I, was not allowed to apply for bail as he is now serving a prison sentence for other offences. The very day the release was ordered, the Government struggled to get new terrorism legislation approved by the House of Lords in order to replace the 2001 law (see above). Nevertheless, bail conditions mirror the 2001 provisions and closely resemble the controversial proposals of the new Prevention of Terrorism Act (see above). Terms include electronic tagging, a ban on meeting anyone outside home without prior Home Office approval, a 7pm to 7am curfew, a ban on mobile phones and internet access, limitation to one bank account and ban on money transfers without Home Office approval and the duty to notify the Home Office when intending to leave the country. The Home Secretary issued control orders as soon as the new Bill came into force on 13 March 2005. The new legislation gives the Home Secretary the power to do so as long as a high court judge is to confirm the control order within seven days.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/internment.shtml

The Guardian, 11, 12 and 13 March 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk

BBC News, 11 March 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk

Bangladesh not safe, says High Court judge

On February 25, a High Court judge ruled that it was unlawful to include Bangladesh in the official "white list" of countries it is safe to return people to. Mr Justice Wilson said that it was "all too clear" that persecution and human rights abuse were not isolated problems at the margins of life in Bangladesh, which was officially ranked as "worst for corruption on an international index". It is now open to the Home Secretary to take the case to the Court of Appeal. Bangladesh was added to the white list in July 2003 on the grounds that it had ratified the six core United Nations human rights treaties, had a parliamentary system and a constitution which provided for an independent judiciary. Bangladesh is one of 14 countries currently declared safe, with India about to be added to the list. Asylum applications from "safe" countries are presumed to be unfounded and when rejected under the expedited procedure they are not allowed to appeal from within Britain, i.e. the appeal has no suspensive effect.

The Guardian, 25 February 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk

New rules on marriage for foreign nationals living in the UK

Since 8 February, most non-EU nationals (except for citizens of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway) need Home Office approval to marry. The Home Office has contended that the new rules are aimed at reducing the number of sham marriages, which are an estimated 15,000 a year. Under the previous regulations any person wishing to get married in the UK only had to produce evidence that they had been resident in the country for a week and give 15 day notice of the wedding at the local register office. According to the new rules, non-EU citizens must either obtain a visa allowing them to get married before they enter the country or apply for a Home Office 'certificate of marriage approval'. To get a certificate, costing £135, applicants will have to send proof that they have a legal right to be in the UK. Those without a settled status, such as asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their application, will have no right to marry in the UK. However, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) has stated that the rules breach human rights law and may give rise to a legal challenge, by reason of not being proportionate and being discriminatory. The new rules have also been called into question by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In a report published last year, the Committee expressed its concern that the new laws might be incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act because of discrimination on grounds of religion, belief and nationality.

Home Office, Statutory Instrument 2005 N. 155.

www.legislationonline.org

BBC news, 1 February 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk

Asylum-seeking minors may now need to register with the police

Following changes to paragraphs 325 and 326 of the Immigration Rules, asylum seekers from the age of 16 who have been granted limited leave of a period exceeding six months are now required to register with the police.

www.childrenslegalcentre.com

Right to request permission to work

Following implementation of the Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, a new part 11B has been inserted in the Immigration Rules (with effect from 4 February 2005). Rule 360 now allows asylum seekers who have not had a decision at first instance on their asylum claim within one year of the date on which it was recorded to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to work. The request will be considered only if in the opinion of the Secretary of State any delay in reaching a decision at first instance cannot be attributed to the applicant.

www.childrenslegalcentre.com

UNITED NATIONS TREATY MONITORING BODIES

The full texts of all Concluding Observations and Jurisprudence of all Treaty Monitoring Bodies are available at the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (HRC)

At its session from 14 March to 1 April, the HRC will consider periodic reports from the following States: Barbados, Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Mauritius and Uzbekistan. On 17 February 2005, Mauritania became the 154^th State party to the ICCPR.

Concluding Observations

Slovakia

CCPR/CO/78/SVK/Add.1, 27 January 2005

Following its consideration of Slovakia’s second periodic report (CCPR/C/SVK/2003/2) in 2003, the Human Rights Committee had asked Slovakia to supply information, in response to the recommendations of the Committee’s concluding observations on Slovakia’s report (CCPR/CO/78/SVK). The paragraphs in question concern police harassment and ill treatment during police investigations and the results of policies adopted to eradicate discrimination and combat racial violence and incitement, mainly against the Roma population.

UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE (CAT)

Jurisprudence

Canada

CAT/C/33/D/133/1999, Communication No. 133/1999, 17/12/2004

The complainant Enrique Falcon Ríos, a Mexican citizen, who had until 1997 lived and worked on the farm of his uncle, who himself used to be a soldier in the state of Chiapas, but had deserted from the army in December 1996, without telling his family. On arrival in Canada on 2 April 1997 the complainant applied for refugee status on the grounds that he had been tortured by soldiers in Mexico because of his uncle’s alleged links with the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN). His application was rejected.

On 20 March 1998 the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board determined that the complainant was not a refugee within the meaning of the Convention as defined in the Immigration Act, since his account was not credible. The board was particularly critical of the implausible circumstances attending his uncle's desertion and the falsification of an EZLN card—there being no evidence that the movement issues identity cards to its members. On 17 April 1998 the complainant submitted an application for judicial review of the Board's decision. In a decision delivered on 30 April 1999, the Federal Court of Canada (First Instance Division) rejected the application for judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Protection Division, as the complainant had been unable to demonstrate any error that would justify intervention by the court.

The state party asserted that there were no substantial grounds for believing that someone was at risk of torture unless it was established that he or she personally would run such a risk in the state to which he or she will be returned. As for the human rights situation in Mexico, the state party pointed out that the situation had considerably improved since the complainant left, and that Mexico was party to the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its first Optional Protocol.

Before the Committee, the applicant claimed that his forced return to Mexico would constitute a violation by Canada of article 3 of the Convention, and that the hearing on his claim for refugee status violated article 16 of the Convention. He asserted that his rights were grossly violated in Mexico, and that should he return to Mexico he would again be tortured, or even executed by the Mexican army. In support of his claim he submitted a medical certificate concluding that "the marks on the patient's body are compatible with the torture that he states he suffered", and a psychological report stating that he "was bruised, weakened by the torture he had undergone and events associated with trauma" and that "without effective support, which implies the acquisition of refugee status", it was to be feared that he "will act on his suicidal impulses". Regarding the current situation in Mexico, the complainant stressed that there was total impunity for soldiers and police officers who committed offences against the population.

The Committee noted the state party's point that the complainant's testimony contained significant gaps. However, it also noted that, according to the psychologist's report, the complainant displayed "great psychological vulnerability" as a result of the torture to which he had allegedly been subjected. The same report stated that Mr. Falcon Ríos was "very destabilized by the current situation, which presents concurrent difficulties", and that he was "bruised, weakened by the torture he had undergone and events associated with trauma". In the Committee's view, the vagueness referred to by the State party could be seen as a result of the psychological vulnerability of the complainant mentioned in the report; moreover, the vagueness was not so significant as to lead to the conclusion that the complainant lacks credibility. The Committee also took note of and attached due weight to the evidence and arguments put forward by the complainant about his personal risk of being subjected to torture: the fact that he had been arrested and tortured in the past because he was suspected of having links with EZLN; the scars he continues to bear as a result of acts of torture that he suffered; and the fact that the conflict between the Mexican Government and the Zapatista movement was not yet over and that some members of his family were still missing. In light of the foregoing and after due deliberation, the Committee concluded that there was a risk of the complainant being arrested and tortured again on returning to Mexico and hence removal of the complainant to Mexico would constitute a violation by the state party of article 3 of the Convention.

COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (CRC)

On 4 March 2005, Liechtenstein became 93^rd state party to the optional protocol on children in armed conflict. The same day, Poland became 92^nd state party to the optional protocol on sale of children.

Concluding Observations

During its 38^th session from 10–28 January, the CRC inter alia considered the periodic reports of Albania, Austria, Luxembourg and Sweden. All concluding observations are now available in English.

Albania

The CRC welcomed the progress Albania had made in establishing a clearer framework governing the treatment of refugees and the prevention of statelessness, including the progress made in ensuring the access of refugee and asylum-seeking children to Albanian schools. The Committee recommended that Albania amend asylum legislation to introduce provisions ensuring that the best interest and views of the child are considered during status determination. It further recommended that pre-screening procedures of foreigners extend to the border points in order to guarantee maximum protection to child asylum seekers and trafficked children, who are otherwise at risk of refoulement. On the issue of unaccompanied children, the Committee noted that the departure of approximately 4,000 unaccompanied children to neighbouring countries was a significant problem and recommended that Albania make efforts to determine the causes for such large-scale departure and introduce safeguards to reduce the phenomenon, in particular if such children are victims of illegal networks.

Austria

The Committee noted with concern that some domestic legislation does not yet fully conform to the principles of the Convention, in particular family reunification and refugee children laws. The CRC called on Austria to make available disaggregated data on refugee and asylum-seeking children.

Luxembourg

The Committee issued its concern that no sufficient data are available on children, especially the most vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied or separated refugee and asylum-seeking children. The CRC welcomed the fact that refugee and asylum-seeking children have free access to the school system, however it noted with concern that a high number of foreign children are often disadvantaged by the educational programmes and teaching methods in Luxembourg.

Sweden

The CRC called on Sweden to conduct status determination procedures of children in a child-sensitive manner, in particular by giving priority to children’s applications and taking into account child-specific forms of persecution. Furthermore, the Committee noted with concern the excessive length of family reunification procedures. Moreover, it was concerned at the occurrence of child trafficking, prostitution and related issues by Swedish citizens in Sweden and abroad.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

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

For full reports and documentations, please visit: http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/

Russia

In January 2005, representatives of the CPT had talks in Moscow and Rostov-on-Don with senior Russian officials. The talks, held from 26 to 28 January 2005, focussed on the CPT’s findings during its most recent visit to the North Caucasian region, which was carried out from 24 November to 1 December 2004 and covered places of deprivation of liberty in the Chechen Republic and Ingushetia.

San Marino

A delegation of the CPT carried out a visit to San Marino from 8 to 11 February 2005. It was the Committee's third periodic visit to San Marino. During the visit, the delegation followed up the recommendations the CPT had made after the visits in 1992 and 1999, in particular the conditions of detention at San Marino prison and the safeguards offered to persons detained by law enforcement agencies. Further, it examined in detail the procedures for involuntary hospitalisation and “obligatory medical treatment” (TSO) of psychiatric patients. For the first time in San Marino, the delegation also visited two homes for the elderly.

Slovakia

Ratifies the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

On 27 January 2005, the Permanent Representative of Slovakia to the Council of Europe transmitted the instruments of ratification of the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

Slovakia

A delegation of the CPT carried out a visit to the Slovak Republic from 22 February to 3 March 2005. It was the Committee's third periodic visit to the Slovak Republic. The delegation followed up a number of issues examined during previous visits, in particular the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty by the police, as well as the situation in prisons and social services homes. For the first time in the Slovak Republic, the CPT visited psychiatric establishments. In the course of the visit, the delegation held consultations with Daniel Lipšic, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Vladimír Palko, Minister of the Interior, as well as senior officials responsible for the police, prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and social services homes. It also met Pavel Kandrac, Human Rights Ombudsman, and representatives of the Prosecutor-General's office.

United Kingdom

On 4 March 2005 the CPT published a report on its visit to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man in May 2003, together with the response of the UK Government. Prison overcrowding in England was one of the main reasons for the Committee's visit. Other issues reviewed include ill treatment, prison conditions and healthcare services. The delegation also reviewed developments concerning detention by the police and prisons in Scotland and the Isle of Man, and visited detention facilities for children in Scotland and the Isle of Man, as well as a psychiatric establishment in Scotland. The material conditions, regime, means of restraint, segregation and health in children’s facilities were discussed. Concerning psychiatric establishments, issues included living conditions, staff resources and treatment as well as safeguards for patients.

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)

On 15 February 2005, ECRI published its reports on Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Macedonia, and Turkey. The full texts of all ECRI reports are to be found at http://www.coe.int/ecri.

Austria

The third report on Austria welcomed positive developments in some areas, such as the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the declaration made under CERD, enabling individuals to file petitions to the respective Committee. However, ECRI criticised the fact that measures adopted in the asylum field have diminished the protection awarded and have had a negative impact on public opinion towards immigrants. Racism and racial discrimination still affect the daily lives of members of minority groups, in particular black Africans, Muslims and Roma. Furthermore, ECRI condemns racially discriminatory behaviour on the part of the police.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

In its first report on BiH, ECRI welcomed some positive steps that have been taken, inter alia the ratification of several international instruments, including Protocol No. 12 of the ECHR and near finalisation of the process of repossession of IDP/refugee property. Nevertheless, the Committee noted severe problems of racism, racial discrimination and segregation in the country. Groups especially affected by this include minority returnees, the Roma population, and other national minorities. Discrimination and segregation exist in virtually all areas of life, particularly in education, employment, housing and access to health and social security services. On refugees and asylum seekers, ECRI noted that while a new Law on Movement and Stay of Aliens and Asylum has been in force since 2003, UNHCR continues to conduct refugee status determination, while at the same time focussing on building the capacity of BiH’s authorities to progressively take over this function. Approximately 19,500 refugees from Croatia still remain registered and another 15,000 to 20,000 are estimated to remain unregistered, mainly in the north-west of Serbia. Additionally, around 3,000 persons under temporary protection from Kosovo, predominantly Roma, still live in BiH (previously 6,000). ECRI is seriously concerned about stigmatisation of these persons, especially when living in reception centres.

France

In its third report on France, ECRI criticised French immigration law of 2003 for not fully guaranteeing the right to private and family life of non-citizens, and deplored the extension of the period for which a non-citizen without legal status may be detained (up to 32 days), as well as detention conditions. Furthermore, it criticised the remaining problem of ‘sans papiers’ and the stigmatisation of immigrants. In relation to refugees and asylum seekers, ECRI expressed concern about the new asylum law, which primarily intended to limit the number of asylum requests and reduce the time allowed to file an asylum application. Concern was also expressed about the use of accelerated procedures and the lack of adequate legal aid and linguistic assistance, all of which endangered the right to request asylum. Moreover, the report details the issues of trafficking in human beings, non-citizens in overseas territories, access to adequate education and housing, as well as Travellers and Roma communities.

Macedonia

On 15 February 2005, ECRI published its third report on Macedonia. The report was positive about the new law on asylum and temporary protection of 2003, especially its provision for temporary and humanitarian protection aside of refugee status, and its recognition of the principle of non-refoulement. Nevertheless, ECRI expressed concern on the issue of human trafficking—Macedonia being both a country of destination and source of trafficking—and the 2,000 to 3,000 remaining IDPs in the country. However, the report concentrated on the issue of Roma, who continue to suffer from a culmination of legal, economic and social disadvantage and discrimination.

Turkey

In its third report on Turkey, ECRI noted progress especially with the ratification of several international instruments and major constitutional and legislative reforms aimed at reinforcing fundamental rights and freedoms and combating racism and racial discrimination. However, ECRI stressed that there is still room for further improvement of religious freedoms. Moreover, although progress has been made, some members of minority groups, in particular Kurds and immigrants, are still subjected to ill treatment by law enforcement officials. Kurds, especially when displaced within the country, encounter major problems related to the conflict in the south-east.

On immigration, ECRI noted that while often described as a transit country, Turkey had in fact become a destination country, especially for people from East European countries as well as Iraq and Iran. Recently, there also appeared to be a significant increase in people arriving from African countries. Although Turkish authorities initially underestimated migration flows, recently legislation has been adopted in areas such as work permits for non-citizens and trafficking in human beings. However, the report puts forward serious concerns about the alleged ill treatment of immigrants without legal status, especially of African origin. According to some allegations, African immigrants are systematically detained without their legal status being checked. Other allegations related to summary deportations to the border without the right to asylum and non-refoulement being respected. Also, applicants often do not have access to the asylum procedure due to a lack of information and short time limits. Moreover, apparently Turkish authorities too readily tend to classify certain transit countries as safe and thus refuse asylum. Furthermore, it was noted with concern that the reservation concerning the geographical application of the Geneva Convention to nationals of European countries is still in force. However, parallel protection is ensured via agreement with UNHCR. Also, concern was expressed about information on asylum seekers living in poverty, with insufficient access to legal or social assistance pending settlement of their cases. Moreover, a serious problem remains with human trafficking for purposes of prostitution.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

For full texts of the following cases, visit: http://www.echr.coe.int

Czech Republic

Singh v. the Czech Republic (application no 60538/00), Chamber Judgement

Violation of Article 5(1) (f) and Article 5 (4) (excessive length of detention and proceedings)

The applicants Balbir Singh and Bakhschisch Singh, both Indian nationals, were born in 1955 and 1956 respectively. Mr Balbir Singh currently lives in Slovakia and Mr Bakhschisch Singh is staying in the Czech Republic.

In November 1996 the applicants were arrested in the Czech Republic, where they were lawfully resident, and prosecuted for assisting others to cross the border illegally. On 9 April 1998 the Prague 7 district court (obvodní soud) sentenced them to 21 months’ imprisonment and orders were made excluding them indefinitely from national territory.

After serving their sentences, the applicants were placed in detention pending deportation from 11 August 1998, on the grounds that it was impossible to deport them immediately since they did not have passports. The applicants twice applied to be released and granted refugee status. All appeals were dismissed.

The applicants were released on 11 February 2001 and subsequently issued with travel documents enabling them to leave Czech territory.

The applicants alleged that their detention pending deportation had been unlawful and disproportionate, particularly on account of its excessive length. They also submitted that the courts did not rule speedily on their applications for release. They relied on Article 5 (1) (f) and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicants were detained pending deportation for two and a half years. The proceedings were characterised by periods of inactivity and the Court concluded that the Czech authorities ought to have shown greater diligence, especially once the Indian Embassy had expressed its unwillingness to issue the applicants with passports in April 1999. In that respect, the question arose as to why the Czech police had not supplied the applicants with travel documents within the meaning of the Residence of Aliens Act prior to their release.

The Court also noted that, under Czech legislation, detention could be extended beyond two years only if there were serious grounds for assuming that the release of the person concerned would endanger or complicate the proceedings. In the present case, there had been no substantial change in the courts’ submissions throughout the applicants’ detention. In addition, the Court noted that the applicants had been convicted for an offence that was not particularly serious, and that the length of their detention pending deportation had exceeded that of the prison sentence imposed on them.

Consequently, the Court considered that the Czech authorities had not shown due diligence in handling the applicants’ case and that the length of their detention had not been reasonable. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 (1) (f).

As to the applications for release, the Court noted that the proceedings in connection with the first of those applications had lasted almost three months for two levels of jurisdiction, and that an additional month had been required for notice to be served of the ruling, resulting in uncertainty with regard to the option of submitting a new application. The second application for release had lasted almost eight months. Having regard to its case law in this area, the Court considered that such lengths of proceedings did not satisfy the requirement of speediness contained in Article 5 (4), and consequently concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention.

Russia

Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00),

Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia (no. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00)

Isayeva v. Russia (no. 57950/00)

Chamber Judgement, 24/02/2005; violations of Articles 2, 3, and 13.

In a landmark decision, the Court ruled that Russia committed serious abuses, including the torture and killing of civilians, during its military offensives against separatists in Chechnya. The Court was ruling on claims by six Chechens who blamed Moscow for the deaths of relatives during attacks and bombings by the Russian military in 1999 and 2000. Two of the six Chechens alleged they were tortured and family members were killed by the Russian military in Grozny, the Chechen regional capital. The others complained of the shelling of civilians in late 1999 and early 2000, during a flare-up in the conflict between Russian forces and separatist rebels which has raged on and off since 1994.

The panel of judges, among them one Russian, were unanimous in condemning Russia for breaching the European Convention of Human Rights article on the right to life (Art. 2). The Court set out the case law and general principles in this area. It then noted that, where potentially lethal force was used in pursuit of a permitted aim, the force used had to be strictly proportionate to the achievement of that aim. Operations involving potential use of lethal force had to be planned and controlled by the authorities to minimise the risk to life. Authorities had to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods with a view to avoiding and, in any event, minimising incidental loss of civilian life.

In the case of Khasiyev and Akayeva, the Court found it established that the applicants’ relatives had been killed by military personnel. No other plausible explanation as to the circumstances of the deaths had been forthcoming, nor had any justification been relied on in respect of the use of lethal force by the state agents. The case of Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva related to an aerial missile attack, during which the first applicant’s two children had been killed and the first and second applicants wounded. Even assuming that the military had been pursuing a legitimate aim, the Court did not accept that the operation had been planned and executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilians. In the case of Zara Isayeva it was undisputed that the applicant and her relatives had been attacked when trying to leave Katyr-Yurt through what they had perceived as a safe exit as they fled from heavy fighting. A bomb dropped from a military plane had exploded near their minivan, as a result of which the applicant’s son and three nieces had been killed and the applicant and her other relatives had been wounded. The Government had suggested that the use of force had been justified under paragraph 2(a) of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court accepted that the situation that existed in Chechnya at the relevant time called for exceptional measures by the State. The undisputed presence of a very large group of armed fighters in Katyr-Yurt and their active resistance might have justified use of lethal force by the state agents, thus bringing the situation within paragraph 2 of Article 2. A balance nevertheless had to be struck between the aim pursued and the means employed to achieve it. It was further noted that no martial law and no state of emergency had been declared in Chechnya, and no derogation has been entered under Article 15 of the Convention. The operation therefore had to be judged against a normal legal background. Accepting that the operation in Katyr-Yurt had pursued a legitimate aim, the Court did not find that it had been planned and executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilian population. Thus, the Court found a violation of Article 2 in all cases. Furthermore, the Court concluded in all cases that the Government had failed to carry out an effective investigation, which in itself amounted to a violation of Article 2.

In two cases, the Court said Moscow had also violated the ban on torture and inhumane or degrading treatment (Art. 3). Although the Court was unable to find that beyond all reasonable doubt the applicants’ relatives had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, the failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the allegations of torture was a violation (Khasiyev and Akayeva).

In the case of Bazayeva, the applicant had been subjected to an aerial attack, which had resulted in destruction of her family’s vehicles and household items. This constituted grave and unjustified interference with her peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. There had thus been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.

In all cases criminal investigation had been ineffective in that it lacked sufficient objectivity and thoroughness, and the effectiveness of any other remedy, including the civil remedies, had been consequently undermined. The Court therefore found that the state had failed in its obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention.

Russia can request the case be referred to the Court's grand chamber for a final judgment within the next three months. The six cases were the first of about 120 concerning the Chechen conflict submitted to the Court.

The cases were lodged before the European Court by ECRE member agency ‘Memorial’ Human Rights Centre and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

Russia’s representative to the European Court of Human Rights Pavel Laptev said on 25 February that the Government are likely to appeal against the decision, which awards compensation.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Feb/ChamberjudgmentsChechencases2422005.htm

Memorial/ EHRAC press release: www.londonmet.ac.uk/EHRAC

Turkey

Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, application no. 46827/99, violation of article 34.

On 4 February 2005, the Grand Chamber delivered a judgment in the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey. The applicants, two Uzbek nationals, are members of the Uzbek opposition party ERK. They were extradited from Turkey to Uzbekistan on 27 March 1999 and are understood to be in custody. Mr Mamatkulov arrived in Istanbul on 3 March 1999 on a tourist visa. Mr Askarov entered Turkey on 13 December 1998 on a false passport. Both were arrested and taken into police custody, as they were suspected of murder, causing injuries in a bombing in Uzbekistan and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of the republic. Uzbekistan requested their extradition under a bilateral treaty with Turkey. Both applicants were questioned before criminal courts. The judges noted that the offences with which the applicants were charged were neither political nor military but ordinary criminal offences. They ordered the applicants to be detained pending extradition.

The applicants lodged applications with the European Court of Human Rights indicated on 18 March 1999 to the Turkish Government under Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of the Court that “it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to extradite the applicants until the Court had had an opportunity to examine the application further.” According to rule 39, the Court can “indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it.” This is to ensure that while a case is pending before the Court, no measures are taken that could irreversibly contradict any future ruling or hamper investigation during proceedings.

However, notwithstanding rule 39, the Turkish authorities handed the applicants over to the Uzbek authorities on 27 March 1999 while the case was still pending before the Chamber. In a judgment of 28 June 1999 the High Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan found the applicants guilty and sentenced them to 20 and 11 years’ imprisonment respectively.

In a Chamber judgment of 6 February 2003 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3, that Article 6 was inapplicable to the extradition procedure in Turkey and, that no issue arose regarding the second complaint lodged under Article 6, under which the applicants submitted that they had no prospect of receiving a fair trial in their country of origin and faced a real risk of being sentenced to death and executed. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a breach of Article 34, because Turkey had not complied with the Court’s interim measures. The Turkish Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

Relying on Articles 2 and 3, the applicants submitted to the Grand Chamber that at the time of their extradition, they faced a real risk of being tortured or ill treated. They also complained under Article 6 about the unfairness of the extradition procedure in Turkey and the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan. They further maintained that by not acting in accordance with the interim measures ordered by the Court and extraditing the applicants, Turkey had failed to discharge its obligations under the convention.

Regarding Article 3, the Court took note of reports from international human rights organisations denouncing an administrative practice of torture and other forms of ill treatment of political dissidents in Uzbekistan and the Uzbek regime’s repressive policy towards such dissidents. However, the Court found that although those findings described the general situation in Uzbekistan, they did not support the specific allegations made by the applicants, which required corroboration by other evidence.

The Turkish Government had contended that the applicants were extradited after an assurance was obtained from the Uzbek Government that “the applicants will not be subjected to acts of torture or sentenced to capital punishment”. The Government also produced medical reports from the doctors of the Uzbek prisons where the applicants were being held.

In the light of the material before it, the Court was not able to conclude that substantial grounds existed for believing that the applicants faced a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3. That is why the interim measure was ordered. Turkey’s failure to comply with the interim order prevented the Court from assessing in the manner it considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case whether a real risk existed. Consequently, no violation of Article 3 could be found and Turkey’s failure to comply with the interim measure must be examined below under Article 34.

Having considered and rejected the applicants’ allegations under Article 3, the Court found it unnecessary to examine them separately under Article 2.

Concerning the applicants’ complaint that they had not had a fair hearing in the criminal court that ruled on their extradition, the Court reiterated that decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of aliens were not concerned with the determination of any civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 (1), which consequently was not applicable.

Concerning the applicants’ submission that they would not be given a fair trial in Uzbekistan, the Court considered that the risk of a flagrant denial of justice had to be assessed by reference to the facts that the state knew or should have known when it extradited those concerned. Although there might have been reasons at the time for doubting that the applicants would receive a fair trial in Uzbekistan, there was not sufficient evidence to show that any possible irregularities in the trial were liable to constitute a flagrant denial of justice. Consequently, no violation of Article 6 (1) could be found.

Regarding Article 34, the Court noted that the applicants, once extradited, lost contact with their lawyers, and therefore lost an opportunity to gather evidence in support of their allegations under Article 3. As a consequence, the Court was prevented from properly assessing whether the applicants were exposed to a real risk of ill treatment. The Court observed that in a number of recent decisions and orders, international courts and institutions had stressed the importance and purpose of interim measures and pointed out that compliance with such measures was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of its decisions. In the light of the general principles of international law as well as international treaty and case law, the interpretation of the scope of interim measures could not be dissociated from the proceedings to which they related or the decision on the merits they sought to protect. Under the convention system, interim measures played a vital role in avoiding irreversible situations that would prevent the Court from properly examining the application and securing the practical and effective benefit of the convention rights asserted. Accordingly, a failure by a state to comply with interim measures would undermine the effectiveness of the right of individual application and the state’s formal undertaking in Article 1 to protect the rights and freedoms in the convention. Indications of interim measures allowed the Court not only to carry out an effective examination of the application, but ensure that the protection afforded to the applicant by the convention was effective.

The facts of the case clearly showed that the Court was prevented by the applicants’ extradition from conducting a proper examination of their complaints and ultimately protecting them against potential violations of the convention as alleged. As a result, the applicants were hindered in the effective exercise of their right of individual application guaranteed by Article 34, which the applicants’ extradition rendered meaningless. Thus, there was a violation of Article 34.

ECRE MATERIAL

ECRE Comments on Amended Proposal for the Procedures Directive

ECRE has published Comments on the amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status (the Procedures Directive) on 10 March 2005. The publication comes at a crucial moment as the Parliament is re-consulted on this Directive, on which the Council reached political agreement on 19 November 2004. ECRE fears that the text of the proposal will not guarantee a proper and fair examination of every asylum application or an effective remedy in all cases against a refusal of the asylum claim by the determining state. ECRE believes that there are five minimum guarantees from which there should never be derogation (even in so-called accelerated procedures): access to free legal advice, access to UNHCR/NGOs, a qualified representative and interpreter, a personal interview and a suspensive right of appeal. The current text of the Procedures Directive fails to guarantee any rights except access to UNHCR.

The comments of ECRE focus on a limited number of articles with recommendations on their deletion or amendment. They are:

§ Application of safe third country concept (Article 27).

§ Exceptional application of the safe third country concept (Article 35A) (= 'super safe 3rd countries)

§ Application of the safe country of origin concept (Article 30, 30A, 30B, and Annex II).

§ Effective remedy/suspensive appeal (Articles 6 and 38).

§ Right to legal assistance (Article 13).

§ Right to communication with UNHCR/other refugee-assisting organisations (Article 9 (1) (c)).

§ Right to an impartial interpreter (Article 9 (1) (a) & (b)).

§ Right to a personal interview (Articles 10 and 11)

§ Accelerated, inadmissible, and manifestly unfounded procedures (Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29)

The comments from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards in procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, as agreed by the Council on 19 November 2004 can be accessed at www.ecre.org

The amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards in procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, as agreed by the Council on 19 November 2004 (Council Document 14203/04, Asile 64, of 9 November 2004)

http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14203.en04.pdf

PRESIDENCIES OF THE EU

LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY

(1 January to 30 June 2005)

On 22 December 2004 Luxembourg and the United Kingdom (UK) published the Operational Programme of the Council for 2005. The present (Luxembourg) and future (UK) presidencies of the EU outlined in this programme the main areas on which the work of the Council will focus in 2005. In the field of Justice, Freedom and Security (also known as Justice and Home Affairs) the issue of asylum and migration is one of the four main topics addressed, the others being law enforcement cooperation, the fight against terrorism and judicial cooperation. These priorities are closely related to the policy priorities set out in the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice, which were adopted by the Council in November 2004.

According to the presidencies, the Council will focus on the implementation of the set of common minimum standards on asylum. This legislative framework will be completed with the adoption of the Procedures Directive, of which the Council adopted the text on 19 November 2004 and on which the European Parliament is being consulted. The set of minimum standards on asylum will be complemented by measures building the Common European Asylum System—for instance by facilitating practical cooperation between asylum services. The presidencies will work on improving access to durable solutions through the development of regional protection programmes and more cooperation on resettlement. The Council will also focus on the integration of third country nationals as well as returns policy. Finally it is mentioned in the programme that cooperation with third countries is and will remain central to asylum and migration issues.

The priorities for the first half of 2005, outlined more closely in the objectives set by the Luxembourg presidency, put Justice and Home Affairs at the top of the agenda. The Luxembourg presidency aims at a Directive for long-term resident status for refugees and persons benefiting from subsidiary protection. Practical cooperation between the specific asylum services of member states is also mentioned as well as debates on the Green Paper on legal migration, which the Commission published in January 2005. Finally, the Luxembourg presidency attaches great importance to the external dimension of refugee policies.

‘The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union’ was published in the Official Journal C53 on 3 March 2005:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:053:SOM:EN:HTML

The Operational Programme of the Council for 2005 submitted by the incoming

Luxembourg and United Kingdom Presidencies:

http://www.eu2005.lu/en/presidence/priorites_et_pgm/programme_pres/Operational_programme_2005.pdf

The Justice and Home Affairs priorities of the Luxembourg Presidency:

http://www.eu2005.lu/en/presidence/priorites_et_pgm/priorites/index.html#justice

For past, present and future priorities see also the Multiannual Strategic Programme of the Council 2004-2006, prepared by the six Presidencies, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Austria and Finland:

http://www.eu2005.lu/en/presidence/priorites_et_pgm/programme_pres/pluriannual.pdf

justice and home affairs COUNCIL

Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 27-29 January

The first informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in 2005 took place in Luxembourg from 27 to 29 January. The meeting’s aim was to provide an opportunity for ministers to have an initial exchange of views on the implementation of the Hague Programme. On the agenda was the external dimension of European asylum policy, one of the main priorities of the Luxembourg Presidency. In line with the background document on this topic the discussion focused on three aspects of the external dimension of asylum policy: 1) regional protection programmes, 2) strengthening protection capacities in regions of transit and 3) resettlement. Ruud Lubbers, then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, attended the meeting and called for a holistic approach on asylum based on shared responsibility with countries that already host large numbers of refugees.

At the meeting it was clear that member states were supportive of the development of the protection capacity in asylum seekers’ regions of origin or transit countries. It was not decided where pilot regional protection programmes were to take place, although it became clear that the Great Lakes region, north African countries and those on the eastern frontier of the EU were likely to be targeted. The Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini, stated that the Commission would present an action plan for strengthening the protection of refugees in regions of origin in July 2005.

On the issue of resettlement, Ruud Lubbers criticised member states for not filling their quotas for resettled refugees. He called for the rapid establishment of a EU resettlement scheme, which could reduce the pressure of spontaneous arrivals. While there was said to be more support for a EU resettlement programme than in the past, not all countries were positive towards the idea. The Commission is expected to present a proposal for a European resettlement programme in June 2005.

The Ministers concluded that the external dimension of EU asylum policy should be linked to development policies, based on equitable international responsibility sharing and founded on the principles of the 1951 Refugee Convention. “The citizens of Europe want a clear response to issues concerning the problems connected with immigration and with asylum seekers. The solution to these problems must be linked to external policies and to development. The refugee issue is a collective issue, the responsibility for which should be shared by the entire international community in an equitable way and not only by the countries that are located near regions in crisis. All European policy in this area should be based on the standards of the Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees”, Luxembourg Immigration Minister, Nicolas Schmit, said in a presidency press release.

On the eve of the informal Council, Amnesty International wrote an open letter to the Council and Commission in order to draw attention to the alarming situation of asylum seekers within the EU. The organisation expressed its concern that “serious violations of international human rights and refugee law by EU member states remain without any response from the Council or the Commission”, referring to reports on the situation of asylum seekers in Malta, Greece and Italy in relation to expulsions to Libya.

The working document on the external dimension of European asylum policy:

http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/documents_travail/2005/01/2701docstravailinfojai/infojaifr1.pdf

The Presidency’s press release on the informal JHA Council:

http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/communiques/2005/01/2901asile/index.html

The UNHCR press release on the speech of the High Commissioner:

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=NEWS&id=41fb93104&page=news

The Talking Points of the High Commissioner:

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=ADMIN&id=41fb91342&page=admin

Amnesty International’s open letter:

http://www.amnesty-eu.org

JHA Council meeting on 24 February 2005

On 24 February the JHA Council met formally in Brussels. Ministers discussed the content of the Commission’s Green Paper on economic migration, which was published on 11 January 2005. The aim of this paper is to launch a debate on the admission of third country nationals for economic reasons, and therefore a public hearing will be held on this document in June 2005. A follow-up of this hearing will be provided by an action programme of the Commission on legal migration at the end of 2005. Ministers will continue the discussion on this paper at the next JHA Council meeting on 14 April.

Related to this Green Paper was a discussion on the proposal of the presidency and the Commission for a mutual information and early warning system regarding important decisions on migration and asylum. The suggestion to increase the exchange of mutual information came in the aftermath of the decision made by the Spanish Government to offer amnesty for up to 1 million illegal immigrants and by the British Government to tighten rules for immigrant workers. The Council welcomed the idea of giving each other early warning of any important changes in national immigration policies. The Commission is expected to give policy directions in this regard at the JHA Council of 14 April, while a more developed and concrete proposal is expected in June.

Further, the Council reached political agreement to relax the regulations on reciprocity with regard to third countries. Up until now there has been an automatic introduction of visas on third country nationals whose country requires a visa for EU citizens. Since the USA has imposed visa requirements on all new member states, excluding Slovenia but including Greece, the automatic visa introduction was amended mainly to avoid restraining the EU’s relationship with the USA. The Council also discussed insertion of biometric data in visas and residence permits and was in favour of extending access to the recently created visa information system (see below) to national police forces. Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini pointed out that the Commission was in the process of investigating Germany’s visa policy after political controversy caused by a rise in the number of visas granted to Ukrainians. The granting of visas to Ukrainians was also discussed on 25 February by the EU Troika (the former, future and present Presidencies) but no agreements were reached.

Another topic addressed by the Council, after a suspension of the debate two years ago, was a framework decision for harmonizing definitions and sanctions on racism. The Council decided that Nazi or racist symbols would not be included in this discussion as the Ministers failed to reach an agreement on this issue.

The Conclusions of the JHA Council:

http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/05/st06/st06228.en05.pdf

The Green Paper on economic migration:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/docs/com_greenpaper_provisoire_en.pdf

The proposal on a mutual information and early warning system (in French):

http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/fr/jha/83850.pdf

Competitive Council meeting on 7 March 2005

The provisions of the Dublin II regulation, determining which member state is responsible for processing an application for asylum, and the fingerprint database Eurodac will be extended to Denmark. This was decided upon at the meeting of the Competitiveness Council, which took place in Brussels on 7 March.

The provisional Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council (in French):

http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/conseil/2005/03/07Compet/84046.pdf

COUNCIL DIRECTIVES

Hague Programme in the Official Journal

The definitive text of the Hague Programme, laying out the grounds for a EU policy in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice from 2005 to 2010, was published in the Official Journal (OJ) of the European Union on 3 March.

The OJ C53:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:053:SOM:EN:HTML

UNHCR annotated comments on Qualification and Procedures Directives

UNHCR published on 28 January 2005 an article-by-article analysis of the Qualification Directive (also called the Definition Directive), which was published in the OJ of the European Union on 30 September 2004. UNHCR Annotated Comments on the Qualification Directive provides an analysis and interpretation of the Directive's provisions, which should serve as an aid to the transposition and application of the Directive by the member states, as well as its interpretation by jurists, institutions and others.

In March 2005 UNHCR published its Provisional Comments on the Proposal for the Procedures Directive. Using the same format as for the comments on the Qualification Directive, UNHCR gives an article-by-article analysis of the Procedures Directive, making recommendations and suggesting amendments to various provisions. UNHCR calls for a single asylum procedure in which “each case should be considered in its entirety with regard to both 1951 Convention grounds and complementary/subsidiary protection needs as “all forms of international protection which are available in a national legal system be decided upon by the same competent authority in one single procedure with the same minimum guarantees.” UNHCR will issue final comments on the Directive after its formal adoption and publication.

UNHCR Annotated Comments on the EC Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection granted (OJ L 304/12 of 30.9.2004) will soon be available at: www.unhcr.ch

UNHCR Provisional Comments on the Proposal for a European Council Directive on Minimum Standards on Procedures in member states for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status will be available at www.unhcr.ch

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strategic objectives and work programme of the Commission

The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, outlined the Commission’s strategic objectives for the next five years at the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg on 26 January. “We have a clear vision of a Europe we can build together, founded on economic dynamism, strengthened in its social justice and bonded together with greater social cohesion”, Mr Barroso said. “European solidarity cannot stop at the borders of Europe, and Europe must not have the illusion it can act in isolation,” he continued, stressing the importance of the EU’s neighbourhood policy, effective multilateralism and a new strategy for Africa.

In the document, called “Strategic Objectives 2005 – 2009. Europe 2010: A partnership for European Renewal. Prosperity, Solidarity and Security” it is outlined that “freedom in a borderless Europe gives the Union a special responsibility. This is the case notably for border control, asylum and immigration, and trafficking of human beings”. A common asylum policy “should allow the Union to admit asylum seekers in justified cases in an equitable way”. The document further proclaims, “solidarity must not end with Union citizens. A common approach concerning the rights and obligations of immigrants should be developed, and migrants from inside and outside the Union require support with integration into their new societies in full respect of human dignity. Such a migration policy needs to be long-term: ensuring that the knock-on effects of migration on society are cushioned by smoother integration”. The launch of the Commission’s overarching objectives coincided with the presentation of the Commission work programme for 2005, emphasising the preparation for the second phase of the Common European Asylum System.

On 14 February in Berlin, Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini gave a speech outlining the Commission’s priorities for the next five years. Frattini pointed to some of the Hague Programme’s main objectives, such as the continued development of a Common European Asylum System, development of an Agency of Fundamental Rights, the possibility of regional protection schemes and joint processing of asylum claims. Frattini stressed the importance of an increased emphasis on evaluation and implementation and said; “adopting legislation is never enough – equally important is to ensure that it is properly implemented and applied in practice (…) adopting new legislation will not help if existing legislation is not used to its full potential”.

On 2 March the Commission also adopted its Annual Policy Strategy for 2006. The preparations for the application of the Constitution will have a growing importance in 2006 and a need to revise the Hague Programme in relation to this is expected. During the course of 2006, the Commission is also planning to prepare for the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, scheduled to start work in January 2007, adopt a proposal setting up an agency or a European immigration observatory and prepare for the creation of a European support office in the area of asylum.

Strategic Objectives 2005-2009, Europe 2010: A partnership for European Renewal, Prosperity, Solidarity and Security:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/off/work_programme/index_en.htm

Work Programme for 2005:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/off/work_programme/com2005_0015_en.pdf

Annual Policy Strategy for 2006:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/off/work_programme/aps_en.pdf

José Manuel Barroso’s speech

http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/43&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

For Franco Frattini’s speech:

http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/93&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Commission and UNHCR sign strategic partnerships

On 15 February the European Commission and UNHCR signed two agreements aimed at strengthening their cooperation on asylum in Europe and on assistance for refugees outside of the European Union. An Exchange of Letters between Ruud Lubbers, High Commissioner for Refugees and Commissioner of Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini updates the formal terms of the working relationship that existed during the first phase of harmonisation of asylum policy. According to UNHCR, this will entail continued dialogue and cooperation that will include monitoring and analysis of national law and practice on asylum, encouraging greater practical cooperation between national asylum services, and work on developing regional protection programmes. The continuing cooperation takes into account the new orientation of European refugee policy laid out in the Hague Programme, which sets out the policy priorities of the EU until 2010.

A Strategic Partnership Agreement between UNHCR and the Directorate General External Affairs complements the mentioned Exchange of Letters. This agreement includes in the first overarching theme, ‘capacity-building for the development of asylum systems in third countries’, which corresponds to the EU’s agenda to project its asylum policy beyond its borders. The UNHCR and the EC will cooperate closely to enhance the protection offered to refugees in third countries.

UNHCR press release, ‘UNHCR signs cooperation agreements with European Commission’

www.unhcr.ch in the News section.

There the link of the Memorandum concerning the establishment of a strategic partnership between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Commission of the European Communities in the field of protection and assistance to refugees and other people of concern to the UNHCR in third countries and the Letters of Exchange is available.

European Commission finances one year project of UNHCR in North Africa

On 1 February 2005 UNHCR launched a one-year project focused on the North Africa region. The European Commission and the Dutch government are providing almost one million dollars in finance for this project, which looks into the complex issue of transit migration from sub-Saharan Africa into Europe and its impact on refugee protection. The project has three main objectives: to increase the knowledge and understanding of transit migration in North Africa, to strengthen protection mechanisms for refugees and asylum seekers in the region, and to develop a multilateral strategy to address the consequences of rescue and interception at sea of boats carrying people trying to reach Europe. This project is seen as a first step towards understanding the link between transit migration and refugees and creating a protection space for asylum seekers while they are in transit.

UNHCR Briefing Notes, ‘UNHCR launches North Africa transit project’

www.unhcr.ch in the News section

UNHCR press release, ‘UNHCR project to shed light on Africa-Europe transit migration’

www.unhcr.ch in the News section

Commission adopts proposal for a regulation concerning Visa Information System

On 7 January 2005 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on a Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between member states on short-stay visas. The VIS shall be composed of a European central database, which will be connected to the national systems to enable consulates and other competent authorities of the member states to enter and consult data on visa applications and decisions. Franco Frattini, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, said: “VIS has two main goals: contributing to the internal security of the member states and the fight against illegal immigration by supporting the common visa policy and the checks on the visa applicants, thereby facilitating bona fide travelling in the Schengen area without internal borders”. A Commission press release describes the VIS as “a system for the exchange of visa data between member states and thus primarily an instrument to support the common visa policy. It will also facilitate checks at the external borders and within the member states, the application of the ‘Dublin’-Regulation determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application and the identification and return of illegal immigrants.”

For the adoption of the regulation the co-decision procedure will apply and it will thus be a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The proposal for a Regulation on a Visa Information System (VIS):

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/10&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

Commission met with NGOs to get input on Communication on integration

On 1 March, representatives from the Commission’s Justice, Liberty and Security Directorate, met ECRE and other NGOs in Brussels to discuss a forthcoming Communication on integration. The meeting was based on a draft discussion paper from the Commission on the promotion of a structural exchange of information on integration at EU level. NGOs stressed the need to ensure that any structures facilitate the contribution of the knowledge and direct experiences of NGOs and refugee community organisations (RCOs) and that their work can feed into or complement the work of National Contact Points on integration. The Commission is expected to publish the Communication on integration at the end of July 2005.

The Draft Outline for a Discussion paper on promotion of structural exchange of information on integration at EU level (MIGRAPOL -Integration 50) can be obtained by contacting ECRE at euecre@ecre.be.

Public Hearing on Fundamental Rights Agency

The European Commission held a public hearing on the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency on 25 January 2005. The setting up of such an Agency was one of the promises made by Franco Frattini when taking office as a Commissioner on Justice, Freedom and Security in October 2004. The Agency is also included in the Hague Programme and in the agenda of the present (Luxembourg) and future (United Kingdom) Presidencies (see above). The plan is to turn the European Monitoring Centre on Racism gradually into a Fundamental Rights Agency, which is expected to become operational in 2007.

Franco Frattini opened the public hearing stating “the Commission aims to adopt a proposal for a Regulation on the Agency in May [2005].” Amnesty International expressed their concern whether the Agency will prove to be capable of having a real impact. The human rights organisation states that the agency should focus on the gap between principle and practice within EU borders, but anticipates that the agency will only play a marginal role as member states have put more emphasis on what the agency should not do instead of what it should do. Amnesty International is not the only organisation sceptical about the Agency. According to Anne-Sophie Parent, President of the Social NGOs Platform, "No one will gain from creating an additional bureaucratic entity which will bring no concrete change and which has no necessary means to assess and solve problems".

For Franco Frattini’s speech:

http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/34&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

Press release of Amnesty International EU Office, ‘EU Fundamental Rights Agency: Amnesty says debate avoiding the hard questions’

http://www.amnesty-eu.org/

For more information:

Actualités Sociale Hebdomadaire N°2388 of 1 January 2005

New website of Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini

Commissioner Franco Frattini has launched his own website giving information on his agenda and personal priorities. “We need to reconcile two fundamental requirements: to tackle effectively the threats to people’s everyday life in Europe and at the same time to protect the fundamental rights which have been spelt out both at national and European level”, Frattini says on the website. There is also a possibility to e-mail him suggestions and questions.

Franco Frattini’s new website:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/frattini/index_en.htm

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

ALDE conference underlines Integration as EU priority

A conference on the integration of minorities and immigrant communities, titled ‘Unity in Diversity’, which was organised on 5 January in Brussels by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) from the European Parliament, placed emphasis on the fact that the integration of migrants has long been a source of misunderstanding and sometimes of contrasts between countries of origin and host countries. Participants noted that legal immigration is not a solution to illegal immigration. Former Belgian Minister for Home Affairs, Antoine Duquesne, MEP, recalled that integration remains a priority for the EU. Richard Williams, EU Representative of ECRE, reminded participants that “some asylum seekers will be tomorrow’s European citizens”.

Speeches and contributions of the participants, including ECRE, are available at:

http://alde.europarl.eu.int/Content/Default.asp?pageid=657

European Parliament adopts resolution on EU Constitution

The European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on 12 January 2005 in a non-binding, but politically symbolic vote in support of the Constitution. During its plenary session in Strasbourg on 12 January 500 MEPs voted in favour, 137 voted against and 40 abstained. According to the Resolution, “the Constitution is a good compromise and a vast improvement on the existing treaties, which will, once implemented, bring about visible benefits for citizens (and the European Parliament and the national parliaments as their democratic representation), the member states (including their regions and local authorities) and the effective functioning of the European Union institutions, and thus for the Union as a whole.”

The European Parliament resolution on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+20050112+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3&NAV=X

Resolution on remembrance of Holocaust, anti-semitism and racism

The European Parliament adopted a common resolution on remembrance of the Holocaust, anti-semitism and racism on 27 January 2005. The adopted resolution pays tribute to the victims of the Nazis and affirms the need for education and information for young people, urging the Commission to monitor application of the 2000 Directive on racial equality. Sarah Ludford, MEP, suggested that 27 January become a day for remembering the Holocaust in all the member states and highlighted the need for particular recognition of the genocide of the Roma. The resolution was adopted before the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 24 February (see above) reinitiated talks on the framework decision on racism and xenophobia that has been in deadlock since 2001.

The European Parliament resolution on remembrance of the Holocaust, anti-semitism and racism:

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0018+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3&NAV=X

Jean Marie Cavada new LIBE committee chair

Jean Marie Cavada (ALDE Group) has replaced Jean-Louis Bourlanges as chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberty, Justice and Home Affairs after Bourlanges’ resignation for personal reasons. In a press release announcing his appointment on 1 February, Cavada said he expected his committee’s area of work to have a ‘high political profile’ with Parliament’s increased powers under co-decision. As a former president of Radio France and career journalist, he said he would use his experience of civil society to take into account citizens’ expectations “particularly in connection with asylum and immigration policy” and would “endeavour to reconcile the importance of civil liberties with the growing demands for improved security”.

For more information:

http://alde.europarl.eu.int/

CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY

Referendums on the European Constitution

The first consultative referendum on the new Constitution for the EU was held in Spain on 20 February 2005. A larger than anticipated majority of 77 percent voted “yes”. However, the enthusiasm over the result was somewhat subdued by the low turnout as only 42.3 percent of those entitled to vote did so. The Spanish Parliament and Senate are expected to cast their decisive vote in June 2005.

In the next two years various other member states will also hold a referendum on ratification of the Constitution. These countries are the Czech Republic, Denmark (27 September 2005), France (29 May 2005), Ireland, Luxembourg (10 July 2005), the Netherlands (1 June 2005), Poland, Portugal and the UK. member states that are most likely not to hold a referendum are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Slovak Republic and Sweden. So far the Constitution has been ratified by the Parliaments in Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia.

For an overview of the ratification process on the Constitution:

http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/ratification_en.htm

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-130616-16&type=Overview

Miscellaneous

Assessments of the Hague Programme by the European Policy Centre and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association

A new working paper from the European Policy Centre (EPC) gives an assessment of the impact of the Hague Programme for European Policy on Freedom, Security and Justice, including migration and asylum issues. Various authors have made contributions to the report examining the priorities set out in the Hague Programme and making policy recommendations. A contribution by Steve Peers, Professor of Law at the University of Essex, focus on the asylum and migration section of the Hague Programme. It features a critical analysis of the external dimension of the Common European Asylum System, issues of legal migration, the fight against illegal employment and integration of third country nationals. Peers argues that the adoption of the Constitution for Europe and the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) will be essential for the development of policy in these areas. Guiseppe Callovi, Monica de Boer and Susie Alegre focus in their contributions respectively on border controls and visa policy, the security dimension related to police cooperation and terrorism and “a European Area of Justice”.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has also published a response to the Hague Programme. According to the response, the right of appeal with suspensive effect, the “most important feature of any system of justice”, is insufficiently safeguarded in the current and proposed EU immigration and asylum system. The Hague Programme is based on a “securitarian understanding of the movement of persons”, as the commitment to the principle of non-refoulement is particularly fragile and the emphasis is put on border control.

The EPC “Working Paper 15: The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU”:

http://www.theepc.be/TEWN/pdf/607029773_Working%20Paper%2015%20FINAL.pdf

For a summary of the Paper:

http://www.theepc.be/en/default.asp?TYP=TEWN&LV=464&PG=TEWN/EN/detail&AI=464

The ILPA response to the Hague Programme:

http://www.ilpa.org.uk/ (scroll down to submissions and click on ILPA response January 2005)

NGOs’ letter calling on European Commission to take Italy to the European Court of Justice

A group of French, Italian and Spanish NGOs wrote to Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso on 20 January 2005, urging the European Commission to take Italy to the European Court of Justice over the expulsion of 1,500 “boat people” to Libya on October of 2004. The NGOs accuse Italy of having violated the fundamental principles of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the Geneva Convention of 1951, which prohibit collective expulsions and protect asylum seekers from refoulement.

The NGOs’ letter:

http://www.gisti.org/doc/actions/2005/italie/plainte20-01-2005.pdf

ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE

www.unhcr.ch/press-releases

Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Report:

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=422439144

http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_007/nn_161630/Internet/Content/Themen/AuslaenderFluechtlingeAsyl/DatenundFakten/Asylantraege__2004.html

Social

Connections: Social bridges Social bonds Social links

Concluding Observations

On 4 March 2005, Liechtenstein became 93^rd state party to the optional protocol on children in armed conflict. The same day, Poland became 92^nd state party to the optional protocol on sale of children.

Concluding Observations

Ratifies the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

On 27 January 2005, the Permanent Representative of Slovakia to the Council of Europe transmitted the instruments of ratification of the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

Singh v. the Czech Republic (application no 60538/00), Chamber Judgement

Chamber Judgement, 24/02/2005; violations of Articles 2, 3, and 13.

The comments of ECRE focus on a limited number of articles with recommendations on their deletion or amendment. They are:

§ Application of safe third country concept (Article 27).

§ Exceptional application of the safe third country concept (Article 35A) (= 'super safe 3rd countries)

§ Application of the safe country of origin concept (Article 30, 30A, 30B, and Annex II).

§ Effective remedy/suspensive appeal (Articles 6 and 38).

§ Right to legal assistance (Article 13).

§ Right to communication with UNHCR/other refugee-assisting organisations (Article 9 (1) (c)).

§ Right to an impartial interpreter (Article 9 (1) (a) & (b)).

§ Right to a personal interview (Articles 10 and 11)

§ Accelerated, inadmissible, and manifestly unfounded procedures (Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29)

The comments from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards in procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, as agreed by the Council on 19 November 2004 can be accessed at www.ecre.org

ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE

www.unhcr.ch/press-releases

Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Report:

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=422439144

http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_007/nn_161630/Internet/Content/Themen/Auslaender__Fluechtlinge__Asyl/DatenundFakten/Asylantraege__2004.html

Social

Connections: Social bridges Social bonds Social links

Concluding Observations

On 4 March 2005, Liechtenstein became 93rd state party to the optional protocol on children in armed conflict. The same day, Poland became 92nd state party to the optional protocol on sale of children.

Concluding Observations

Ratifies the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

On 27 January 2005, the Permanent Representative of Slovakia to the Council of Europe transmitted the instruments of ratification of the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

Singh v. the Czech Republic (application no 60538/00), Chamber Judgement

Chamber Judgement, 24/02/2005; violations of Articles 2, 3, and 13.

The comments of ECRE focus on a limited number of articles with recommendations on their deletion or amendment. They are:

§ Application of safe third country concept (Article 27).

§ Exceptional application of the safe third country concept (Article 35A) (= 'super safe 3rd countries)

§ Application of the safe country of origin concept (Article 30, 30A, 30B, and Annex II).

§ Effective remedy/suspensive appeal (Articles 6 and 38).

§ Right to legal assistance (Article 13).

§ Right to communication with UNHCR/other refugee-assisting organisations (Article 9 (1) (c)).

§ Right to an impartial interpreter (Article 9 (1) (a) & (b)).

§ Right to a personal interview (Articles 10 and 11)

§ Accelerated, inadmissible, and manifestly unfounded procedures (Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29)

The comments from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards in procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, as agreed by the Council on 19 November 2004 can be accessed at www.ecre.org

http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_007/nn_161630/Internet/Content/Themen/AuslaenderFluechtlingeAsyl/DatenundFakten/Asylantraege__2004.html

On 4 March 2005, Liechtenstein became 93^rd state party to the optional protocol on children in armed conflict. The same day, Poland became 92^nd state party to the optional protocol on sale of children.