COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Council of Europe signs partnership agreement with Roma and Travellers Forum

The European Roma and Travellers Forum has gained the status of an international non-governmental organisation (INGO), with the mandate to represent Roma communities all over Europe. A partnership agreement, signed on the 15^th of December 2004, will allow the forum to play a bigger role in the decision-making processes inside the Council of Europe, which will provide the forum with staff and offices at its Strasbourg headquarters. Council of Europe Secretary General, Terry Davis, said:

“Now we must ensure that both international and national authorities not only hear the voices of Roma and Travellers, but also listen to them.”

http://press.coe.int/cp/2004/625a(2004).htm

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Social_Cohesion/Roma_travellers/

Secretary General appeals to Governments to help change the UN

In a statement to the UN General Assembly, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Governments to strengthen and change the United Nations in order to enable the organisation to confront today’s global challenges. He recommended that the UN get ‘serious about prevention’ and Governments ‘work hard to make sure that collective

security means something’. Mr. Annan appealed to Governments to help make

2005 the year of change for the United Nations.

Press release, UN ‘needs change - perhaps radical change’ to meet 21^st century threats of Aids, Genocide, Terrorism, Secretary-General tells General Assembly, 8.12.2004

UNHCR

UNHCR request for the suspension of forced returns to areas affected by the tsunami

UNHCR recommended that all states suspend, for three months initially, all involuntary returns to a number of affected areas, even in the case of persons found not to be in need of international protection. The areas affected to which this should apply have been listed as: Sri Lanka (the coastal areas in the north, east and south of the country, Indonesia (Aceh), The Maldives (affected islands), India (the coastal areas of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, as well as the Andaman and Nicobar islands), and Somalia (the coastal areas).

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.pdf?CATEGORY=RSDLEGAL&id=41e653294

Source: http://www.exodus-network.org

UNHCR welcomes EU asylum plans, but warns against burden-shifting

UNHCR has welcomed the adoption of the EU’s new multi-annual asylum programme, but warned that there is still a lot of work to do if the EU is to achieve its stated goal of establishing a common system for refugee protection within the EU by 2010. The High Commissioner for Refugees welcomed the focus on the external dimension of European asylum policy, but also stressed that Europe must be ready to share responsibilities with the developing countries. In addition, UNHCR stressed that member states must now transpose the adopted asylum directives into national legislation, without leaving policies at the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, the harmonisation process should be transparent and consultative, taking into account the views of independent experts.

UNHCR PR, UNHCR welcomes EU asylum plans, warns against burden-shifting, 5.11.2004

UNHCR releases third quarter asylum statistics

The total number of asylum applications lodged in 36 industrialised countries during the first three quarters of 2004 fell by 22% over the same period a year ago. In Europe as a whole, quarterly asylum levels increased by 5% from Q2 to Q3 of 2004, but fell by 24% compared with Q3 of 2003. In the EU, 6 % more asylum claims were submitted in Q3 than in Q2 of 2004, but were 20% fewer compared with Q3 of 2003. The enlarged EU receives 75% of all asylum claims submitted in the 36 industrialised countries. France has been the leading asylum-seeker receiving country since the last quarter of 2003. There was no quarterly change in the ranking of the main asylum-seeker nationalities.

A detailed UNHCR Population Data Unit report outlining asylum levels and trends in the 36 industrialised countries for the third quarter of 2004 is posted on the UNHCR website

UNHCR Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries, Third Quarter 2004, www.unhcr.ch

UNHCR note on the cancellation of refugee status

A note setting out the legal parameters for the cancellation of refugee status granted under the 1951 Geneva Convention was issued in November 2004. The note elaborates on the legal principles underlying the cancellation procedure, discusses the grounds for cancellation and the evidentiary requirements. It also sheds light on whether a cancellation should be discretionary or mandatory.

UNHCR Note on the Cancellation of Refugee Status, 22.11.2004

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.pdf?CATEGORY=RSDLEGAL&id=41a5dfd94

Internally Displaced People among most neglected citizens

UNHCR’s Global IDP Project report calls on Governments to pay more attention to the large number of internally displaced people on the European continent and worldwide, by granting them the same rights as they would have at home and by addressing the causes of forced displacement.

http://www.idpproject.org/

BBC News, World ‘forgets’ internal refugees, 5.11.2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3985159.stm

UNHCR issues position on asylum seekers and refugees from the Chechen Republic, Russian Federation

UNHCR’s stance highlights some positive developments in the Chechen Republic, yet concludes that the overall situation in Chechnya still raises serious concerns due to targeted persecution as well as ongoing hostilities significantly affecting the civilian population and lead to continued forced displacement. UNHCR maintains its position that Chechens whose place of permanent residence was the Chechen Republic prior to their seeking asylum abroad should be considered in need of international protection.

UNHCR Position regarding Asylum-Seekers and Refugees from the Chechen Republic, Russian Federation, October 2004, released December 2004

http://www.asylumpolicy.info/protectionforchechnya.doc

INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

Suspension of removals to some of the tsunami-affected areas in a number of EU states

UK Ministers have agreed to a request by the UN to suspend enforced removals of rejected asylum seekers to areas affected by the tsunami of 26 December 2004 in the Indian Ocean. Other countries believed to have suspended removals include The Netherlands and Switzerland.

Financial Times, Tsunami leads to shift in asylum policy, 10.01.05

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b0ed2a3a-62ab-11d9-8e5d-00000e2511c8.html

AUSTRIA

Essential parts of the Asylum Act ruled unlawful by Constitutional Court

In a decision made public on the 15 October 2005, the Constitutional Court ruled that essential parts of the new Asylum Act are unlawful. The Court ruled that regulations of non-suspensive effect on appeals in Dublin cases, and automatic detention pending expulsion of asylum seekers who make follow-up or secondary applications after a rejected first application, were unconstitutional. Also, new legislation that allowed only asylum seekers who had medical proof of being traumatised to produce new facts or evidence was ruled unlawful.

Migration News Sheet, November 2004

http://www.vfgh.gv.at/presse/G237-35-03.pdf

BELGIUM

Asylum seekers in limbo

Some 12,000 asylum seekers have been waiting for more than three years for their application to be dealt with. The Belgian Forum for Asylum Seekers and Migrants is arguing to provide the people concerned with the necessary papers to legitimise their stay, as their rights during the application process are extremely restricted.

Expatica News, Thousands of asylum seekers in limbo, 23.11.2004

De Standaard.

Charges dropped against two Belgian police officers suspected of killing an asylum seeker

Disciplinary charges have been dropped against two of the four Belgian police officers charged with the death of asylum seeker Semira Adamu. A similar judgment is expected for the other two officers. Semira Adamu had died in hospital after having been suffocated during a forced deportation attempt in 1998.

Expatica News, Discipline Charges dropped against asylum death police, 8.12.2004

Brussels refuses entry to Chechen emissary on Schengen blacklist

On 21 November 2004, the Belgian Minister of the Interior, Patrick Dewael, declared that Akhmed Zakaiev, emissary of the rebel Chechen leader, Aslan Maskhadov, would be denied entry if he tried to enter Belgium. Mr Zakaiev is considered by Moscow to be a “terrorist” and therefore on the blacklist of people who are not authorised to enter the Schengen area. In 2003, he received refugee status in the UK, which is not part of the Schengen area. He was invited by the Green MEP Bart Staes to participate in a meeting between the NGO, “Mothers of Russian Soldiers”, and representatives of the movement for Chechen independence. This meeting could not take place because the Belgian consulate in Moscow did not issue the necessary entry visas.

For more information:

Migration News Sheet, December 2004, Migration Policy Group http://www.migpolgroup.com

DENMARK

Quota refugees accepted by Denmark would in future have to be apt for integration

On 9 November, the UNHCR criticised the proposal of the Minister for Refugee, Immigrant and Integration Affairs, Bertel Haarder, to amend an agreement with the UN refugee agency on the acceptance of 500 quota refugees per year. Such refugees would, in future, have to show ‘integration potential’. If sufficient refugees could not show this potential then the unused part of the quota could be carried over to the following year, or these funds could be used for reception projects in the country of origin. UNHCR and domestic opposition parties are concerned about the tilt away from the need to provide effective protection.

Migration News Sheet, December 2004

Countries refusing to take back asylum seekers will have development aid reduced

The Danish Government have agreed to a number of initiatives in recent months, one being the demand by the Danish People’s Party (DFP) that countries refusing to take back their own nationals denied asylum in Denmark incur financial sanctions. In order to ensure the indispensable support of the DFP to obtain parliamentary approval for its draft budget for 2005, this measure has been approved. Hence, if such circumstances arise, such countries are likely to have the development aid they receive reduced.

Migration News Sheet, December 2004

GERMANY

Turkish family granted temporary residence permit in Germany as a result of traumatic experiences at UK detention centre

On 21 October 2004, the Administrative Court of Koblenz granted so-called protection from expulsion status to two Kurdish sisters with parents of Turkish origin, who had previously been detained in Dungavel, Scotland for more than a year.

The family applied for asylum in the UK but were refused on Dublin grounds, as they had previously sought asylum in Germany. After a failed deportation attempt in March 2002, the sisters were detained at Dungavel for one year and 19 days, together with their mother and two siblings. On 5 August 2003, the family was finally returned to Germany. They again applied for asylum but their application was rejected in May 2004. The family appealed this decision, and the two sisters submitted medical documents to the court, certifying that they were suffering from serious mental health problems.

In its ruling, the Administrative Court emphasised that it ruled out any possibility tha the family would be exposed to any danger of a political nature in Turkey, or to torture or inhumane treatment. The court however considered that there was a great possibility that the sisters’ mental health would deteriorate if expelled to Turkey. While acknowledging that treatment for mental illness indeed exists in Turkey, the court noted that although they were Turkish citizens, the sisters were not born in Turkey and did not speak the language. The languages they spoke best were German and English. In view of this, the court was uncertain that they would receive adequate psychiatric treatment in Turkey. Although the decision concerned only two of the four children, the other two siblings and their mother will also be allowed to stay in Germany following the ruling.

Migration News Sheet, December 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/scotland/3137841.stm

Metin Kaplan extradited

On 12 October 2004, the Administrative Court in Cologne authorised the expulsion of Metin Kaplan, a controversial Islamic leader who, after serving a four-year sentence for incitement to murder, lost his refugee status granted in 1992 (see p.19 of ECRE’s September 2004 Documentation Service).

Kaplan was wanted in Turkey, his country of origin, for treason and alleged involvement in a terrorist plot. In May 2003, a Düsseldorf court stopped the extradition proceedings against him, as it decided that he would face charges with “the character of political persecution” if returned Turkey. A new decision to extradite Kaplan was upheld by the High Administrative Court in May 2004. However, less than 24 hours later, another court ruled that Kaplan still had two months to make an appeal against the extradition decision. Due to that pending appeal, the city of Cologne decided to extend his permit to stay.

However, the Administrative Court in Cologne has now decided not to allow Kaplan to remain in the country while awaiting his pending appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. The lower court ruled that since Kaplan was considered to be a leading advocate of extremist Islam he could be deported immediately. His lawyer had again argued that he could face torture if returned to Turkey. The Cologne court however considered that such interests were outweighed by the public interest in an immediate deportation.

Migrations News Sheet, November 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/20/germany.kaplan.ap/

IRELAND

Costs associated with the asylum system in Ireland

Following published details on how Ireland spent more than €1.1 billion on services for asylum seekers in the last four years (with social welfare payments constituting the bulk of this amount), the Irish Refugee Council (IRC) criticised the system for being ‘expensive and wasteful’. The payments are made to asylum seekers while their applications for refugee status are being assessed. The IRC said that more than 10,000 asylum seekers were in that situation and some of them had been waiting up to six years for a decision.

IrelandOnLine, Asylum seeker work ban 'costing millions of euros', 13.12.2004

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

Irish Refugee Council, Costs Associated with the Asylum Process in Ireland, 13.12.2004

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

ITALY

Concern about ongoing forced returns to Libya

In November, the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) expressed its indignation at the continuing practice of deporting asylum seekers arriving on the Italian island of Lampedusa to Libya, in complete disregard of the most fundamental human rights principles. JRS has no access to people arriving at the island and is unaware of their countries of origin. There is strong reason to believe that some of the people returned are asylum seekers fleeing the conflict in Sudan. JRS also stressed that the agreement on the management of migration flows between Italy and Libya has not even been ratified by the Italian Parliament yet.

JRS newsletter http://www.jrsusa.org/dispatches_159.htm

MALTA

Iraqi asylum seeker complains about his 14-month detention

On 25 October 2004, the Magistrates Court ruled that Karim Barboush, an Iraqi asylum seeker who had been detained for 14 months, was to be released after contesting the lawfulness of his detention. Barboush was arrested upon arrival in Malta on 5 May 2003 and has not been released since. His asylum application has been rejected and he is still awaiting an appeal.

Barboush was to be released on 1 November 2004. However, on 27 November the Criminal Court quashed the ruling to set him free on procedural grounds. On 2 November, a magistrates court confirmed the positive ruling. Nevertheless, on 5 November the Attorney General once again contested the decision to release him, and the Criminal Court revoked the judgment once again, and re-ordered his detention.

Migration News Sheet, November 2004

Migration News Sheet, December 2004

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=8652

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=8677

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=8782

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=8826

THE NETHERLANDS

Court bars extradition of Nuriye Kesbir

On 7 November 2004, a court in The Hague ruled that Nuriye Kesbir, an alleged PKK (Kurdish Workers party) leader who is accused of carrying out 25 attacks between 1993 and 1995 against Turkish citizens and soldiers in the Kurdish war of independence, should not be extradited to Turkey (see November issue of ECRE Documentation Service).

The court hence quashed the decision to extradite Kesbir, made by the Justice Minister, after Turkish diplomatic assurances of fair treatment. The court in The Hague was Kesbir’s last legal resource to appeal against this decision. According to the court, the Justice Minister should not have made a decision based on general guarantees of a fair trial given by the Turkish embassy. It further pointed to reports from diplomats, several human rights organisations and the United Nations, indicating that the Turkish authorities tortured Kurdish activists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3992361.stm

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan4/8-11-05-dutch-court-infever-of-kesbir.htm

RUSSIA

Duma to consider new visa restrictions.

A draft Bill being prepared for consideration in the Duma would amend the law on entering and leaving the Russian Federation to allow the Government to refuse entry visas to foreigners who have “committed actions that demonstrate a disrespectful character relating to the Russian Federation, organs of government power of the Russian Federation, or the country’s state symbols, or acts of disrespect to historical and generally accepted values of the Russian Federation,” RIA-Novosti reported on 16 December. According to Kommersant-Daily, the Bill was introduced on 17 December by State Structures Committee Chairman, Vladimir Pligin, (Unified Russia). The bill would also require visa applicants to submit documentation that they are not HIV-infected and allow the Government to revoke the visas of drug addicts or those infected with dangerous contagious diseases.

The Bill also contains unspecified changes to the section on the law that regulates the issuance of visas to accredited foreign journalists. Finally, it would allow the Government to introduce five-year, multiple-entry visas for citizens of countries that offer similar visas to Russian citizens. The Duma is expected to consider the bill next week.

Russia ready to discuss EU involvement in Chechnya

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, on an official visit to Germany, has signalled a readiness to discuss EU involvement to ease the situation in war-torn Chechnya.

Mr Putin is said to be willing to accept economic help in resolving the conflict, rather than political aid. Russia has always refused foreign intervention in what it considers a domestic battle.

The Financial Times Deutschland reports that Germany and Russia will set up a “dialogue forum” to discuss the Chechnya situation.
http://euobserver.com/?aid=18053&rk=1

SCANDINAVIA

Issue of responsibility-sharing for asylum seekers resurfaces

According to a survey on refugee reception carried out in Norway, the proportion of asylum seekers received by Denmark has fallen from 31% in 2000 to just 9% in 2003. On the other hand, Sweden’s proportion of asylum seekers in Scandinavia has increased from 41% to about 60% in 2003. Though the Danish Minister for Refugee, Immigrant and Integration Affairs, Bertel Haarder, has rejected any connection between the present level of asylum seekers received by his country and the new tough Danish policy, Swedish Minister for Immigration, Barbro Holmberg’s response was more damning. She stressed that this report outlined the need for common EU legislation on immigration since “it is quite obvious that when one country in the region puts a limit on how many asylum seekers it will accept, then these people will seek asylum elsewhere.”

Migration News Sheet, December 2004

‘Jyllands Posten’ (14.11.2004)

SLOVAKIA

Slovakian ministry struggles to open refugee support centres for unaccompanied minors

The Slovakian Ministry of Labour is looking to establish two refugee support centres for unaccompanied minors. Only one village has been receptive to the idea so far, while many other villages have expressed strong opposition to the idea of opening a centre in their neighbourhood, for fear of disease and crime. UNHCR Slovakia said that it would help Slovakia improve its asylum and migration policies, including giving support for the building of new asylum centres in eastern Slovakia. This statement comes after strong criticism from the agency regarding Slovakia’s low acceptance rate.

The Slovak Spectator, New asylum centres face obstacles, 15.11.2004, www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok_tlac.asp?cl=17807&rub=spect_news

The Slovak Spectator, Slovak asylum system ‘discourages’ refugees, 15.11.2004,

www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok_tlac.asp?cl=17808&rub=spect_news

SPAIN

Spanish Government forced to defend their asylum and immigration policy

The Spanish Government were forced on the defensive in January after the Association for Human Rights in Andalucia claimed 289 would-be immigrants died off Spain and Morocco last year, up from 236 in 2003. The association’s chairman, Rafael Lara, said the increase in deaths was partly due to an early warning system, which meant that immigrants have to make longer crossings. Though an immigration spokesman admitted that the system encouraged some boats to attempt more dangerous crossings, he stated that this would not be the case once the system was extended along the whole of the south coast later this year.

Association for Human Rights in Andalucia http://www.derechos.org/news/

Guardian, Immigrant death toll surges, 06.01.2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1384054,00.html

SWEDEN

Sweden grants asylum to more than 200 Iranian Kurds

UNHCR intervened in November to secure a safe passage to Sweden for 202 Iranian Kurds from a refugee camp at the Iraqi-Jordanian border. The refugees had fled through Iraq to the Jordanian border during the US-led invasion of Iraq, but Jordan had refused them access to its territory and forced them to remain in no man’s land. Another 183 refugees in Iraq were granted asylum in Sweden and were due to travel in December.

Kurdistan Observer, Sweden grants asylum to more than 200 Iranian Kurds, 24.11.2004 http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan4/25-11-04-sweden-grant-kurds-asylum.htm

IranMania, Sweden grants asylum to 202 Iranian Kurds, 26.11.2004

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=27326&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs

British public opinion hardens towards migrants

The National Centre for Social Research has published a report that reveals how British social attitudes vis-à-vis immigration are hardening. The report looked into British social attitudes generally, covering topics ranging from immigration to genetically modified foods. People seem increasingly concerned about the social consequences of immigration. 39% (compared to 25% in 1995) believe that immigrants increase crime rates. The report blamed increasingly hard-line statements on asylum from Home Office ministers for fuelling more hostile sentiments about immigrants. There was no indication that anti-immigrant sentiment was caused by an increase in racial prejudice.

NatCen research, British Social Attitudes Survey, 7.12.2004 http://www.natcen.ac.uk/natcen/pages/or_socialattitudes.htm

The Guardian, Opposition to Immigrants hardens under Blair, 7.12.2004 www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1367874,00.html

UK to implement the EU Temporary Protection Directive

The UK Government have announced they will transpose into law in early 2005 the EU Temporary Protection Directive, which was signed in 2001. The directive is intended to enable all European member states to act quickly and in a coordinated manner in the event that people from another country need to be offered temporary assistance due to, for example, armed conflict in their home country.

Home Office Press release, Reference 395/2004, Date: 20/12/2004 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1195

Scots suspicious of fairness of media coverage of asylum issues

Research commissioned by Oxfam Scotland discovered that one in two Scots do not feel that reporting of asylum issues by newspapers is fair and accurate. Some 51% of Scottish adults disagree that most reporting of asylum issues by newspapers is fair and accurate, against 27% of Scots who agree that it is.

www.mori.com/polls/2004/oxfam/shtml

UNHCR criticises UK over treatment of Iraqi refugees

In early November 2004, UNHCR accused then British Home Secretary David Blunkett of imposing punitive measures against Iraqi asylum seekers. The recognition rate of Iraqi asylum seekers in the UK was described as “alarmingly low” by a UNHCR spokesman. A majority of the 6,400 refugees from Iraq who arrived in Britain in the 12 months to June 2004 have been left destitute. Only five Iraqis out of 6,400 were recognised as refugees.

The Independent, UN criticises Blunkett over Iraqi refugees, 12.11.2004 http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=582030

Britain lifts ban on enforced deportations to Zimbabwe

Britain lifted a ban blocking enforced deportations to Zimbabwe in November. Des Browne, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, stated that “the absence of enforced returns increasingly acts as a ‘pull factor’ for Zimbabweans, and for others posing as Zimbabweans.”

The Refugee Council has claimed that these removals have already begun, and it is among a group of organisations expressing their concerns regarding removals before monitoring procedures have been put in place.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate- Zimbabwe Bulletin, November 2004

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/0/country_information/bulletins/zimbabwe_bulletin2.textonly.html

Refugee Council news release, 16.11.2004: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/nov04/relea184.htm

Yahoo News, Britain deporting failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe, 17.12.2004

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041217/323/f8s8z.html

Continuing downward trend in asylum applications

The British Home Office released the latest UK Control of Immigration Statistics 2003. The statistics indicate that the number of asylum applications, including dependants, received in 2003 was 42 % less than in 2002. Applications to the ‘old’ EU member states fell by 19 %, compared with a 42% fall in the UK.

Home Office Control of Immigration Statistics 2003, November 2004

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm63/6363/6363.pdf

UK Joint Committee on Human Rights issues 22^nd Report

In its 22^nd report, the Joint Committee expresses concerns regarding the human rights compatibility of the British Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004, specifically regarding an article that allows for the dismissal of a person’s asylum claim, and thus an exception to the principle of non-refoulement, where that person is suspected of having committed a ‘particularly serious crime’. The Committee’s concern lies with the wide definition of what constitutes a ‘particularly serious crime’. In view of the humanitarian purpose of the European convention on human rights, the Joint Committee argues that the exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement are to be given a restrictive interpretation, as a wider definition undermines the principle of non-refoulement.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/190/19002.htm

House of Lords rules indefinite detention breaches human rights

On 16 December 2004, the House of Lords ruled that the indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects is incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights and thereby quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal that had held that the detention without trial was not in breach of human rights. The nine nationals bringing the case were all detained under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. They were all non-UK nationals and none of them were the subject of any criminal charge, nor was a criminal trial in prospect in any of their cases. The applicants therefore challenged the lawfulness of their detention. Specifically, they all contended that such detention was inconsistent with obligations binding the UK under the ECHR, and given domestic effect by the 1998 Act.

In a previous effort to comply with their human rights obligations, the Government derogated from part of their obligations under article 5 of the European convention. However, the Law Lords ruled by a majority of eight to one that indefinite detention discriminates on the grounds of nationality, because it applies only to foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, despite a comparable threat from terrorism suspects with UK nationality. Indefinite detention was thus in breach of article 14 of the European convention.

The House of Lords ruled also that the suspension of human rights was unjustified, because indefinite detention powers that apply only to some of those who pose a threat cannot be said to be “strictly required”, which is the legal test for suspending rights. Hence, the derogation from article 5 of the European convention was also ruled unlawful.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-1.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/16/uk9890.htm

House of Lords rules that Roma exclusion policy was discriminatory

On 9 December 2004, the House of Lords ruled that the Government acted unlawfully in their attempt to prevent Roma Czechs from entering the UK.

In February 2001 the UK and the Czech Republic made an agreement to permit British immigration officers to give or refuse leave to enter the UK to passengers at Prague airport before they boarded aircraft bound for the UK. British immigration officers were posted to Prague airport to “pre-clear” all passengers before they boarded flights for the UK. Its objective was to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the Czech Republic. That was also its effect. In the three weeks before the operation began, there were more than 200 asylum claims (including dependants) made by Czech nationals at entry points in the UK. Only 20 such claims were made in the three weeks after it began, during which period 110 intending travellers were refused leave to enter at Prague airport.

The Law Lords were told that the monitoring operation showed that while 68 out of 78 Roma people were stopped from boarding flights to Britain, only 14 out of 6,170 non-Roma were turned away. Furthermore, more than 80% of Roma people were taken into second interviews compared with only 1% of other travellers.

The Law Lords were convinced that Roma people were routinely treated with more suspicion and subjected to more intensive and intrusive questioning. The ruling overturned an earlier appeal and a High Court judgment that the operation was no more or less objectionable than a visa control system, and declared that the practice breached the 1951 Convention on Refugees and the Race Relations Act 1976.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041209/roma-1.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1370816,00.html

UKRAINE

MEPs raise EU membership prospect for Ukraine

In a non-binding vote, the 13 January plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg decided overwhelmingly to endorse Ukraine’s aspirations for membership of the EU.

In a resolution passed by 467 votes to 19, with seven abstentions, MEPs welcomed the “substantially fair elections” held on 26 December 2004, and said that the time was ripe to consider frameworks for association with Ukraine other than the EU's Neighbourhood Policy, which they said should be revised in order to help Ukraine in its political and economic reforms. According to the resolution, Ukraine should be given a “clear European perspective” that comes complete with

“the possibility that Ukraine enters the EU”. The reviewed plan is scheduled for official presentation to Kiev later in January.

The Council and the Commission, however, continue to be reluctant to designate Ukraine expressly as an EU candidate. For now, the Commission aims to enhance ties with Kiev by offering a “new kind of relationship” once the country makes progress with its reforms under President Viktor Yushchenko. Commissioner Janez Potocnik said in no uncertain terms that “the question of Ukrainian entry into the European Union is not on the agenda.” The EU's current Action Plan with Ukraine was negotiated with the Government of former Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovich. Meanwhile, President Yushchenko has been invited to Brussels, and his scheduled February visit is also likely to take him to the Parliament

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-129625-16&type=LinksDossier

UNITED NATIONS TREATY MONITORING BODIES

Concluding Observations

The concluding observations 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

Poland

CCPR/CO/82/POL, 2 December 2004

The Human Rights Committee considered and gave its concluding observations on the 5^th periodic report of Poland, during its 82^nd session. The press release was included in the November issue of the ECRE Documentation Service. The edited version of the report is now available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf

Denmark

CCPR/C/82/D/1222/2003,

Communication No 1222/2003: Denmark 09/12/2004.

Jonny Rubin Byahuranga v. Denmark

The author of the communication, a Ugandan national, served as an officer in the Ugandan army during the rule of Idi Amin. He fled Uganda in 1981, and entered Denmark in 1984, where he was granted asylum in 1986. In 1990 he was issued with a permanent residence permit.

In 1997 the author married a Tanzanian national. Together with his daughter from a previous marriage, he was reunited with his wife in Denmark in 1998. She later became a Danish citizen, too, and the couple had two children. On 23 April 2002, the author was convicted of drug-related offences and sentenced to two and a half years in prison, and his expulsion from Denmark was ordered. The High Court of Eastern Denmark dismissed his appeal on 3 September 2002, and the Danish Board of Appeal rejected his application for leave to appeal on 12 November 2002.

The author claimed that his expulsion from Denmark would amount to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. It would expose him to a real and immediate danger of ill treatment upon return to Uganda, as he was an outspoken critic of the Ugandan Government during his time in Denmark, and a participant in conferences where he protested against the Ugandan Government’s treatment of political opponents. He identified several current Ugandan military and Government officials who he particularly feared upon return to Uganda. He further argued that his expulsion would constitute an arbitrary interference with his right to family life under article 17 of the Covenant and a violation of Denmark’s duty to respect and protect the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, as prescribed by article 23, paragraph 1.

The Committee took note of the author’s detailed account about why he feared being subjected to ill treatment by the Ugandan authorities, and it concluded that he made a prima facie case for such a risk. The Committee observed that Denmark, on the other hand, while challenging the author’s claim under article 7, had not submitted any substantive grounds for its position. The Committee found that the expulsion of the author to Uganda would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

As to the alleged violation of the author’s right to family life under articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, the Committee concluded that Denmark’s decision to deport the father of a family with two minor children and compel the family either to accompany him or stay in Denmark should be considered “interference” with the family. The issue therefore arose whether such interference would be arbitrary or unlawful and thus contrary to article 17, read in conjunction with article 23, paragraph 1. The Committee noted that the author had submitted the communication solely in his own right and not on behalf of his wife or children. Hence the Committee could consider only whether the author’s rights would be violated by his removal. The Committee noted further that Denmark had sought to justify its interference with the author’s family life by reference to the nature and severity of the author’s offences. The Committee considered that these reasons were reasonable and sufficient to justify the interference with the author’s family life. The Committee therefore concluded that an expulsion would not be in breach of articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1.

For the full text of this case, visit http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf

UN COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Belarus

CERD/C/65/CO/2, 10 December 2004

During its 65^th session the Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination considered and gave its concluding observations on the 15-16^th periodic reports of Belarus. The Committee noted with satisfaction Belarus’ accession in 2001 to the 1951 Convention relating to refugee status and its protocol, as well as the adoption of implementing legislation. However, the Committee expressed concerns regarding the paucity of information in the state party’s report on the fundamental rights of non-citizens, including stateless persons, refugees and migrant workers, residing, temporarily or permanently in Belarus. It requested that the State party include such information in the next periodic report.

Portugal

CERD/C/65/CO/6, 10 December 2004

The Committee considered and gave its concluding observations on the 1011^th periodic reports of Portugal during its 65^th session. The Committee welcomed the enactment of decree law 251/2002 of 22 November 2002 that, inter alia, enlarges the structure and competencies of the Office of the High Commissioner for Immigration and Ethnic Minorities and establishes the Advisory Board for Immigration Affairs, tasked with ensuring the participation of associations representative of immigrants, employers associations and social solidarity institutions, in the development of policies promoting integration and combating exclusion. The Committee also welcomed the fact that the financial budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Immigration and Ethnic Minorities had recently been increased considerably. However, the Committee expressed concerns about allegations it had received of instances of police misconduct towards ethnic minorities or persons of non-Portuguese origin, including excessive use of force, ill treatment and violence. The Committee also noted that immigrants from central and eastern Europe were reportedly more easily accepted and integrated than other immigrants, especially Africans.

The Committee raised further concerns about the non-suspensive effect of appeal in the admissibility phase of the asylum procedure, which might result in an irreversible situation, even if the decision of the administrative authorities were to be overturned on appeal. The Committee urged the state party to guarantee respect for the legal safeguards for asylum seekers, and to ensure that its asylum laws and procedures conform to its international obligations.

UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

Greece

CAT/C/CR/33/2, 26 November 2004

(Advanced unedited version)

During its 33^rd session, the Committee Against Torture considered and gave its conclusions to the 4^th periodic report of Greece. The Committee welcomed the legislation facilitating the registration of aliens (Law 3274/2004), and the new law on legal aid (Law 3226/2004), according to which lawyers must be appointed to submit complaints on behalf of torture victims and victims of trafficking.

The Committee expressed concerns about procedures for the expulsion of foreigners, which may in some instances be in breach of the Convention. It was also concerned at the low percentage (0.06%) of persons that had been granted refugee status in 2003. The Committee acknowledged that the geographic position of Greece has rendered it an important passage into Europe for many immigrants and asylum seekers, whose number have increased significantly in the past decade. Hence the importance of providing an adequate response was all the more pressing.

The Committee stressed that the training provided to public officials may not be adequate enough to provide an appropriate response to the numerous challenges they face, including undocumented migrants and asylum seekers, and victims of trafficking, many of whom are children.

The Committee further recommended Greece to ensure that the competent authorities strictly observe article 3 of the Convention, and, in doing so, that they take account of general Comment No.1 of the Committee, in which it notes that the phrase “another State” in article 3 refers to the State to which the individual concerned is being expelled, returned or extradited, as well as to any State to which the author may subsequently be expelled, returned or extradited.

United Kingdom

CAT/C/CR/33/3, 10 December 2004

The Committee considered the 4^th periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including dependant territories, during its 33^rd session. The Committee expressed concerns about the state party’s reported use of diplomatic assurances over “refoulement” in circumstances where its minimum standards for such assurances, including effective post-return monitoring and the following of appropriate due process guarantees, are not wholly clear and thus cannot be assessed for compatibility with article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee was also concerned about the State party’s resort to potentially indefinite detention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in international terrorism and the strict regime applied in Belmarsh prison to such detainees.

The Committee furthermore brought up the issue of allegations and complaints against immigration staff, including complaints of excessive use of force in the removal of denied asylum seekers.

Sweden

CAT/C/3/D/218/2002,

Communication No 218/2002: Sweden 27/11/2004.

Luis Jacinto Rocha Chorlango v. Sweden

In 2000, the complainant, an Ecuadorian national, allegedly witnessed the torture and summary execution of two members of the guerrilla group Fuerzas Armadas Revolucinarias del Ecuador-Defensores del Pueblo (FARE-DP) by members of the intelligence service of the Ecuadorian army. After this incident, he began receiving threats from members of the FARE-DP and members of the military. He told his brother, who was also a member of the military, about the incident, and in 2002 his brother was tortured to death in a military camp. After his brother’s death the applicant continued to be threatened and he was finally forced to leave the country. He arrived in Sweden on 23 March 2001 and applied for asylum on 27 April 2001. On 19 June 2001, the Swedish Migration Board dismissed his asylum application, and on 2 September 2002, the Aliens Appeal Board upheld the Migration Board’s decision.

The complainant claimed that he would be at risk of torture, ill treatment, forced disappearance or summary execution, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, if returned to Ecuador.

Sweden argued that the complaint was inadmissible, as the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim that he would be at risk of being tortured if returned to Ecuador. The State party emphasised that Ecuador had been a working democracy for several years, that the complainant remained in Ecuador almost a year after he had witnessed the torture and homicide, that he had never personally been persecuted or threatened by members of the FARE-DP, and that he did not seek protection from the authorities in spite of the fact that the Government forces had done what they could to eliminate FARE-DP. Furthermore, during interviews with the Migration Board, the applicant had clearly stated that he had never had any problems with the Ecuadorian police or other authorities, and the fact that he was given permission to leave the country by both military and police strongly suggested that he was not wanted by the authorities.

The Committee found the claim inadmissible. It noted that the information submitted by the complainant in substantiation of the claim remained general and vague, and did not in any way reveal the existence of a personal and foreseeable risk of torture to which he might be subjected in the event of return to Ecuador. The information provided to the Committee by the complainant was, according to the Committee, at odds with his own account of the facts to the Swedish immigration authorities, as he had not provided reliable information of his being tortured in the past nor that he had had any problem with the police or attracted any interest from the military or the police while he continued to live in Ecuador.

CAT/C/33/D/2223/2002

Communication No 223/2002: Sweden 27/11/2004

The complainant, a Bangladeshi national and member of the Ershad faction of the Jatiya Party in Bangladesh, claimed that members of the governing Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) persecuted him. The incidents were reported to the police, who took no action. The Swedish Migration Board rejected the complainant’s asylum application on 21 February 2001, noting the information provided by the complainant at the two hearings and the subsequent written observations differed inter se, and that he had changed his statements during the second interview. Consequently, the board held that the complainant had not been able to provide a credible account of his situation in Bangladesh or his political activity in the Jatiya Party. The board further observed that the complainant’s alleged political activities, irrespective of his lack of credibility, were legal under Bangladeshi law, and the kidnappings and beatings to which he had been exposed by political opponents was not sanctioned by the authorities. On appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board, the claimant submitted several medical documents stating that he had been tortured and needed protection. The appeals board rejected this appeal on 3 June 2002. In September 2002, another appeal was lodged to the board. This was rejected in October 2002.

The complainant claimed that he would be tortured if he was returned to Bangladesh, and that this would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention. In support of his claim, he referred, inter alia, to NGO reports stating that the use of torture by the police in Bangladesh is common. Copies of medical reports issued by three Swedish doctors in 2001 were also attached to the complaint. These concluded that the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, that the scars on his body were consistent with the acts of torture that he described, and that he required medical treatment.

The Committee found that Sweden’s decision to return the complainant to Bangladesh would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted the medical reports certifying that the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the doctor’s assessment that the scars in his body were consistent with the acts of torture described by the complainant. It also noted Sweden’s doubts as to the identity of the perpetrators of such acts, as well as the reports about the use of torture in Bangladesh and the frequent incidence of violence between supporters of different political parties. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the complainant’s account of his experiences to the Swedish authorities contained contradictions and lacked clarity on issues that were relevant to assess his claim. The Swedish authorities made conclusions about the complainant’s credibility, which, in the Committee’s view, were reasonable, and in no way arbitrary. Hence, the Committee found that the information submitted by the complainant, including the local, low-level of his political activities in Bangladesh, did not contain evidence to support the claim that he would run a substantial risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Bangladesh.

UN COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Denmark

E/C.12/Add.102, 26 November 2004

(unedited version)

During its 33^rd session, the Committee on Economic, Social and cultural Rights considered the 4^th periodic report of Denmark. The Committee was concerned that the rise in the number of immigrants and refugees arriving in Denmark over the last years had been met with increasing negativity and hostility towards foreigners. The Committee also expressed concern about the occurrence of xenophobic incidents in the State party. The Committee recommended that Denmark closely monitor the incidence of, and combat racism and xenophobia, and continue to promote intercultural understanding and tolerance among all groups in society.

The Committee also raised concerns about reports of cases of ill treatment, particularly of migrant women, at the hands of their spouses or partners, which often remained unreported because of economic dependency and fear of deportation. The Committee noted that the situation had been exacerbated by the 2002 amendment to the Aliens Act which increased the required number of years of residence to seven before a permanent residence permit may be obtained by migrant women married to Danish citizens.

Italy

E/C.12/1/Add.103, 26 November 2004

The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights considered and gave its conclusions on the 4^th periodic report of Italy, during its 33^rd session. The Committee noted with concern the lack of comprehensive legislation on asylum seekers by the State party. The Committee therefore called upon Italy to take appropriate measures to adopt comprehensive legislation on asylum seekers and ensure that their economic, social and cultural rights are taken into account.

UN COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Croatia

CRC/C/15/Add.243, 3 November 2004

During its 37^th session, the Committee on the Rights of the Child considered and gave its concluding observations on the 2^nd periodic report of Croatia. The unedited version was summarised in the November issue of the ECRE Documentation Service. The edited version is now available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

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

For full reports of CPT visits, go to: http://www.cpt.coe.int

During the period relevant to this issue of the documentation service, 6 November 2004 to 19 January 2005, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) visited Italy, Cyprus, France and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The CPT also published reports from its visits to Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. Only the visits to Italy and Cyprus, and the reports from Switzerland and Ukraine are relevant to refugees/asylum seekers.

Cyprus

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) carried out its 4^th periodic visit to Cyprus from 8 to 17 December 2004. The CPT’s delegation examined the treatment of persons detained by the police (including immigration detainees) and the effectiveness of the formal safeguards against ill treatment that are available to such persons.

Italy

From 21 November to 3 December 2004, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) carried out its 4^th periodic visit to Italy. During the visit, the delegation examined the conditions of detention and the safeguards offered to foreign nationals in the temporary holding centres in Sicily. During the end-of-visit talks with the Italian authorities, the head of the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration in the Ministry of the Interior announced the closure of the temporary holding centre for foreigners at Agrigento, following an observation made by the delegation.

Switzerland

On 13 December 2004, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) published the report of its 4^th periodic visit to Switzerland in October 2003, together with the response of the Swiss Federal Council.

The main purpose of the visit was to assess the implementation of the measures adopted by the Swiss authorities after the CPT’s visit in 2001, in particular the procedures and means of restraint applied in forcible removals by air. The delegation also reviewed the treatment of foreign nationals refused entry into Switzerland (whether asylum seekers or not) and held in the transit zone at Zurich International Airport, and foreign nationals detained at Kloten Airport Prison No.2, pending their removal from the country.

The CPT noted the considerable work carried out by the Swiss authorities, at all levels, to implement both the letter and the spirit of the recommendations made by the Committee about the removal by air of foreign nationals. The CPT formulated specific recommendations and comments about the systematic offer of a medical examination to every foreign national who had been the subject of a failed removal attempt, in particular, as well as the integration into the general police training programme of information concerning the risk of positional asphyxia during the physical restraint of recalcitrant persons.

Ukraine

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) published the report on its visit to Ukraine in November and December 2002, together with the response of the Ukrainian Government on 12 January 2004. The CPT severely criticised the conditions in which foreign nationals were detained under aliens legislation. It recommended that sufficient financial resources be allocated to the agencies responsible for the centres for foreign nationals in order to meet the detained person’s basic needs (sufficient food, adequate bedding and appropriate clothing). The Ukrainian authorities stated that funds had been allocated to equip and renovate the detention centres, as well as build new ones.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

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

The Netherlands

I.I.N v. The Netherlands (no. 2035/04)

Expulsion to Iran, article 3, inadmissible

The applicant, an Iranian national, applied for asylum in The Netherlands in 2001. He claimed that in 1999 he had been arrested on two occasions during demonstrations. On both occasions he had been ill treated during his detention and released after one day. He further claimed that in January/February 2001 he had been arrested for kissing a male friend, forced to write and sign a statement that he was a homosexual and then raped by the arresting officer. The applicant further stated that this policeman had raped him on two further occasions. In April 2001, one of his friends was found murdered. Fearing the same fate, the applicant decided to flee Iran and he arrived in the Netherlands on 23 April 2001. On 31 October 2001, the Deputy Minister of Justice rejected the applicant’s asylum request, holding that the applicant lacked credibility. The Regional Court of The Hague rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision on 17 April 2003. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State rejected the applicant’s subsequent appeal on 16 July 2003.

The applicant complained to the court that, if expelled to Iran, he would risk ill treatment, in breach of article 3 of the Convention, on account of his homosexuality. He referred to the contents of a report from the Danish Immigration Service of 16 January 2002 and the position paper of the UNHCR Branch Office in Germany in January 2002, which submitted that many cases against homosexuals had been brought before the Iranian courts and that executions of homosexuals took place regularly, although it was not certain whether these capital punishments had been imposed solely for homosexuality, or for other charges as well.

The court declared the application inadmissible. It observed that the materials before it did not disclose active prosecution by the authorities of adults involved in consensual and private homosexual relationships, and there were no recent substantiated instances of trials solely on the basis of such relationships. According to the court, this was at least partly accounted for by the high burden of proof for such offences under Iranian criminal law (i.e. four witnesses), and it also asserted that Islamic law is more concerned with public immorality than with what goes on in the privacy of the home. The majority of sources referred to a certain toleration in practice, with known meeting places for homosexuals in Tehran. The few sources that referred to trial or execution for homosexual offences in recent times appeared vague and unspecific to the court. The court held that although it was not disputed that very draconian punishment could be imposed for homosexual acts, it was not persuaded that the applicant had shown that he was at real risk of falling foul of the authorities on that ground. While he claimed that he had been arrested after being caught kissing a male friend, there was no indication that this resulted in any criminal proceedings against him.

The court noted that although the general situation in Iran did not foster the protection of human rights and that homosexuals may be vulnerable to abuse, the applicant had failed to establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that, if expelled to Iran, he would be exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. .

Amegnigan v. The Netherlands (no. 25629/04)

Expulsion to Togo, article 3, inadmissible.

The applicant, a Togolese national, applied for asylum in the Netherlands on three separate occasions. The first request for asylum was made under a false identity on 18 September 2000. The second request for asylum was made under the applicant’s true identity on 14 March 2001. He claimed that he had been arrested in Togo and had been ill treated during his detention. Furthermore, a medical examination of the applicant disclosed that he was infected with HIV. The Deputy Minister of Justice, finding that the applicant lacked credibility, rejected on 19 December 2001 both requests for asylum. In so far as the applicant relied on his health problems, the Deputy Minister considered that the applicant could apply for a residence permit on medical grounds. The applicant’s subsequent appeal against this decision was dismissed on 17 June 2003.

The third request for asylum was made on 16 October 2003. The applicant now argued that given his HIV infection, his expulsion to Togo would be in violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The asylum request was rejected on 19 October 2003, on the grounds that the applicant was not in an advanced and directly life-threatening stage of an incurable disease. Nevertheless, medical advice about the applicant’s situation implied that the applicant was unfit to travel and the expulsion was postponed. After further investigations and medical advice, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State finally decided in April 2004, that the applicant was to be expelled despite his HIV infection.

The applicant complained under article 3 of the Convention that his expulsion to Togo would accelerate the course of his HIV infection and considerably reduce his life expectancy, on account of the difficulty of obtaining medical treatment there.

The court found the application inadmissible. It noted that it had found no indication in the applicant’s submission that he had full-blown AIDS or suffered from any HIV-related illness. The court further noted that adequate treatment is available in principle in Togo, albeit at a potentially considerable cost. It also stated that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant had no prospect of family support in Togo, where his mother and a younger brother resided. The fact that the applicant’s circumstances would be less favourable in Togo could not be regarded as decisive from the point of view of article 3 of the Convention.

Mohammed Yuusuf v. The Netherlands (no. 42620/02)

Article 8, admissible.

The applicant, a Somali national, entered The Netherlands in 1994, together with her husband and their two children, and was given temporary accommodation in a refugee holding centre. The family subsequently lodged applications for asylum or, as an alternative, residence permits on humanitarian grounds. These applications were rejected and dismissed upon appeal by the Deputy Minister in 1995.

In March 1996, the applicant was found guilty of two accounts of assault. The applicant and her family appealed against the negative decisions on their asylum requests to the Regional Court in December 1996, and in 1999 the appeals were declared well founded and the court ordered the Deputy Minister to reconsider his decisions. By October 2000, the applicant’s husband and their children were granted residence permits pursuant to a policy guideline that entitled asylum seekers to a residence permit if their asylum requests had not been finally decided within three years, provided they had not been convicted of any crime in the meantime (the “three-year-policy”). The applicant was informed that she was allowed to await the outcome of the appeal proceedings in the Netherlands.

In 2002, the Regional Court found that the applicants were not refugees in the sense of the 1951 Convention, and therefore had properly been denied both asylum and residence permits on humanitarian grounds. However, by a decision in July 2003, the applicant’s husband was granted Dutch nationality. By the same decision, the applicant and the couple’s children were refused Dutch nationality on the grounds that they did not have permanent residence permits. An objection was lodged against this decision and the proceedings were still pending at the time of this decision.

The applicant complained under article 8 of the Convention about a disproportionate interference with her right to respect of family life. She argued that she committed the crimes in question, which in her view were of only minor importance—mere quarrels that had got out of hand—in 1994 and 1995, and had committed no other crimes since. In the nearly eight years since the family had entered The Netherlands, three more children were born. The entire family became integrated into The Netherlands and the children had no ties whatever with Somalia. The applicant also argued that the fact that her husband had acquired Dutch nationality by naturalisation presented an objective impediment to their continuation of family life in Somalia. The Government argued that no special facts or circumstances had been shown to exist which placed the authorities under a positive obligation to grant the applicant a residence permit. They attached relevance to the fact that she had committed serious crimes of violence and was therefore not eligible under the “three-year policy”, and stated that the interest of public order and immigration control had to outweigh the applicant’s personal interest to be reunited with her family.

The Court declared the application admissible, as, in the light of the parties’ submissions, the application raised serious issues of facts and law under the Convention, and it should be determined on its own merits.

Sweden

Alzery v. Sweden (no. 10786/04)

Articles 2 and 3, and article 1 of Protocol No.6, inadmissible.

The applicant, an Egyptian national, applied for asylum in Sweden in1999. The Swedish Migration Board observed that the circumstances of his case were such that the applicant could be considered in need of protection under the Aliens Act, however information from the Swedish secret police indicated that he held a leading position in an organisation that had been involved in terrorist acts and that he should be held responsible for this organisation’s acts and hence not be granted asylum in Sweden. The case was handed over to the Government who, for reasons of national security, decided that the applicant’s asylum request should be denied. The Government further received a guarantee from Egypt that the applicant would receive a fair trial and not be subjected to torture or inhumane treatment or punishment upon return. The applicant was expelled on 18 December 2001.

Apparently, upon return to Egypt, the applicant was immediately imprisoned and he alleged that he was tortured and ill treated. On 16 June 2002, the applicant’s Swedish lawyer faxed an incomplete application form to the European Court of Human Rights in which he briefly stated the reasons for lodging a complaint on behalf of his client. The application form was also sent by mail. In the form, the lawyer briefly stated the facts of the case, adding that the account would be completed later. He further claimed that Sweden had violated his client’s rights under articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and under article 1 of Protocol 6 to the Convention, noting that the reasons for the allegations would be expanded upon in a separate document. He added that he requested respite to do so within a reasonable time after the Supreme Court had delivered its decision on 10 October 2002. Due to problems of secrecy–and the interests of national security, it was difficult for him to submit a complete application at that time. The application form was submitted in order to comply with the six-month rule. The Registry replied by letter on 21 June 2002 and stated that the Court awaited further documents in the matter.

On 20 August 2003, the file was destroyed, as no further news had been received from the applicant’s lawyer. Not until 19 March 2004, one year and nine months after receipt of his first fax, did the Court hear from the lawyer again, when he submitted a request that he be granted respite until 3 May 2004 to file further documents. The Court hence opened a new file and sent an introductory letter to the lawyer. The lawyer subsequently contacted the Court asking how it was possible that the file had been destroyed without his knowledge.

The applicant complained under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention that his expulsion from Sweden to Egypt had resulted in his being tortured and ill –treated, and at risk of being sentenced to death or killed during the torture. Furthermore, invoking articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, he complained that, with regard to the allegations of terrorist activities against him, he had neither had access to court nor an effective remedy. Moreover, a court had not examined his expulsion order.

The Court declared the application inadmissible. As regards the application, the Court fully recognised the seriousness of the alleged violations of which the applicant claimed to have been the victim. Moreover, it considered that regard should be paid to the fact that the applicant himself was imprisoned in Egypt and thus not in a position to protect his own interest. Instead, he was completely dependant on his lawyer to do so on his behalf. However, the Court was struck by the fact that the lawyer did not submit the application until a few days before the expiry of the six-month time limit, and, then, submitted only an incomplete application form. The Court further noted that since the applicant’s expulsion, the lawyer had received several documents concerning the applicant’s case, which he had not submitted to the Court upon receipt. It should have been apparent to the lawyer that the Court expected to hear from him again within a relatively short time. In any event, he could have informed the Court of the difficulties that he was encountering. The Court further noted that it was more than two and a half years since the expulsion, which raised issues of legal certainty and the fair examination of the case within a reasonable time, given the very serious and sensitive nature of the alleged violations, as well as the justification for the applicant’s expulsion, namely the national security interests of Sweden. Also, the Court noted that the Swedish Government had had to answer to several international rights bodies, notably the UN Human Rights Committee and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, about the handling of the expulsion. In view of these considerations, the Court did not find that the reasons submitted by the applicant to explain the delay were such that they could have suspended the running of the six-month period in which an application to the Court had to be submitted.

Bader v. Sweden (no. 13284/04)

Expulsion to Syria, articles 2 and 3, admissible

The applicants, a married couple and their two children, were all Syrian nationals who applied for asylum in 2002. The husband submitted that he was of Kurdish origin and a Sunni Muslim, and claimed that he had been persecuted by members of the Syrian police. In 2003, the Swedish Migration Board rejected their applications for residence permits. It noted that the general situation for Kurds in Syria was not such that it satisfied the requirements for asylum. Moreover, the majority of the population in Syria were Sunni Muslims, and the family had left Syria legally. The applicants appealed against this decision to the Aliens Appeal Board, and further claimed that they had used false passports in order to leave Syria. The appeal was dismissed.

In January 2004, the family submitted a new application for asylum to the Aliens Appeal Board. They now invoked a judgment from a Syrian court that stated that the husband had been convicted of complicity to murder, in absentia, and sentenced to death. The Aliens Appeal Board requested information from the Swedish Embassy in Syria who informed it that the judgment was authentic. The embassy further submitted information from a local lawyer that indicated that the husband would receive a less severe punishment in a retrial upon return to Syria. The embassy had no reliable information about how frequently death sentences were executed, as they were normally implemented without public control, but the local lawyer had claimed that it was very rare that death sentences were imposed at all by the Syrian court. In April 2004, the Board rejected the request for asylum by two votes to one.

The applicants complained to the Court that, if expelled to Syria, the first applicant, i.e. the husband, would face a real risk of being arrested and executed, contrary to articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Sweden responded to the complaint by stating that they raised no objection to the application being declared admissible by the Court. Sweden observed that article 2 of the Convention did not prohibit capital punishment but that the protection against the death penalty was guaranteed in all circumstances by article 1 of Protocol No. 13 to the Convention, a Protocol by which Sweden was bound. They further recognised that the human rights situation in Syria was still problematic, and that the death penalty was prescribed for, among other crimes, murder. However, since the enforcement of capital punishment was never made public, it was difficult to determine whether executions took place. Also, the first applicant had not been able to establish that he was at real risk of being sentenced to death or executed upon return to Syria. The Government further observed that there was not as yet any established case law on the risk assessment of an applicant being exposed to a violation of article 1 of Protocol 13. They therefore refrained from making their own evaluation about whether the applicants had sufficiently substantiated that their expulsion would constitute a violation of that article and/or article 3 of the Convention. Against this background, the Government did not contest the admissibility of the application.

The Court considered, in light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raised serious issues of fact and law under the Convention and therefore declared the case admissible.

B v. Sweden (no. 16578/03)

Expulsion to Libya, articles 2 and 3, inadmissible

The applicant, a Libyan national, applied for asylum in Sweden in 2001. During the first interview at the Migration Board, the applicant claimed that he had participated in protests in the districts of al-Zawiyah against the presence of Africans in Syria, mainly by distributing leaflets. The security office in al-Zawiyah further arrested him in 2001 for participating in the uprising against Africans. During a second interview at the Board, the applicant stated that a friend had informed him that he had been sentenced to death, in absentia. In October 2002, the Migration Board, which questioned the credibility of the applicant, rejected the applicant’s request for asylum and ordered that he be expelled from Sweden.

The applicant appealed to the Aliens Appeal Board. He also submitted a copy of the alleged death sentence awarded to him. The Board acknowledged the fact that several participants of the riots in al- Zawiyah in 2000 had been sentenced to death, however it found that the applicant had not shown that he was in need of protection, and hence rejected his application in April 2003. In June 2003 the applicant filed a new application to the Aliens Appeal Board for a residence permit and, in support of his new application, he submitted documents issued by the Libyan authorities that had summoned him to appear for questioning. In September 2003 the Board rejected his appeal.

The applicant complained to the Court under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol No.6 to the Convention that upon return to Libya, he risked execution owing to his involvement in the disturbances in al-Zawiyah. The Swedish Government maintained that the information provided by the applicant regarding his arrest and subsequent death sentence was incorrect and that the documents that he had adduced in support of his claim were false.

The Court declared the application inadmissible. It noted awareness of the occurrence of reports of serious human violations in Libya and noted the well established fact of the existence of disturbances in al-Zawiyah. Still, when assessing the authenticity of the submitted documents, the Court questioned their veracity . The Court also noted that the applicant had changed his story on many occasions during the domestic proceedings. It acknowledged that asylum seekers could not be expected, in all circumstances, to give completely accurate and consistent statements, but found it striking that the applicant failed to give information that would have been vital to the examination of his request for asylum.

ECRE MATERIAL

ECRE information note on the Council decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010

The Council decision establishing the continuation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 (ERF II) was adopted on 2 December 2004. It applies to all EU member states, except Denmark, which is not participating in the adoption of this decision. The sum allocated for the implementation of the programme for the first two years is €114 million, compared with €54 million a year between 2000 and 2004.

Future annual appropriations will be authorised by the budget authority, but the Commission proposal envisages a total amount of €604 million over the six years. The European Refugee Fund will be mainly used for supporting member states in welcoming refugees and asylum seekers, by helping to pay for projects to receive asylum seekers and process their applications (housing, medical aid, social and legal assistance, education, translation), for the integration of refugees in the host member state, and also for returning refugees to their region of origin. The fund may also be used to take emergency measures, via a European temporary protection mechanism, in case of the arrival of a large number of refugees. Up to 7% of the fund can be deployed for cross-border actions and projects launched by the Commission.

ECRE welcomes the gradual and substantial increase in the ERF II budget, as this approximates the investment level required to ensure that all EU member states achieve a high standard of reception for asylum seekers, better results in integration, and success in voluntary return.

However, the bulk of the fund will still be allocated to member states based on the criteria of the number of asylum seekers registered (70%) and the number of refugees granted protection (30%) over the previous three years. It does not, therefore, redress the current uneven capacities in the member states, as it is the countries with lower numbers of asylum seekers and refugees that often have the greater need to build up the necessary infrastructure, in order to ensure that there will be an equal balance of effort across Europe.

ECRE regrets that people requiring international protection within the framework of a resettlement scheme are not explicitly included in the scope of the fund. This would have highlighted the trend towards the emergence of new resettlement countries in the EU, as well as the Union’s own work preparing a proposal for orderly entries into the EU—including an EU resettlement programme—for people in need of international protection. ECRE considers that resettled refugees are fully included in the ERF II programme and therefore welcomes the invitation by the Council to the Commission to prepare, before the end of June 2005, a proposal for a modification of the ERF II to take this into account.

http://www.ecre.org

http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/82937.pdf

PRESIDENCIES OF THE EU

Self-assessment of Dutch EU presidency

In a press release of 17 December, the Dutch EU presidency assesses its own achievements during ‘the Presidency of the enlarged Union’ in the second half of 2004, ‘the first complete Presidency of a Union of 25 states’. The presidency claims to have placed integration on the European agenda:

“The Netherlands has left its specific mark on this presidency by drawing attention within the EU to the foundations of European integration. Thinkers and doers met to consider what values unite us, how these values can be strengthened and what leads they provide for future policies”,

In the area of Freedom, Security and Justice the emphasis is clearly on security, as

“agreement has been reached on the ‘Hague Programme’, which lays down the lines of a strategy for making the Union more secure over the next five years. Priority will be given to the fight against terrorism, but the programme will also cover other important themes such as exchange of information, closer cooperation in the field of justice and cooperation in the field of civil law. Efforts will also be made to achieve a common asylum system by 2010, illegal immigration will be tackled and a European agency will be set up to increase the security of the EU’s external borders.”

Hinting at the way forward this year, the assessment continues:

“Agreement has been reached on the protection of refugees in their regions of origin. The Commission will launch a number of pilot projects in 2005.”

In a speech to the European Parliament on 21 December, Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenender, pointed to The Hague Programme as a ‘core document’ of the Dutch presidency. Combating terrorism and organised crime and the further development of policy on asylum, migration and integration,

“relate to some of our citizens’ key concerns”,

he said, adding:

“These are crucial social issues, for which national solutions are inadequate. The Hague Programme will make the Union more effective and democratic in the field of asylum and migration. In future, the Council will work more extensively with qualified majority decision making. As of 1 January 2005, the European Parliament will share responsibility for drafting legislation through the co-decision procedure.”

The press release is available at:

http://www.eu2004.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=AF8457515E3D47AB80297060A65E3BF7X1X62233X64

http://www.eu2004.nl

Luxembourg presidency’s priorities

The Luxembourg presidency is the first whose work falls within the framework of The Hague Programme.

“The Presidency’s work programme was prepared in close cooperation with the Commission, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, so as to guarantee the necessary continuity and consistency sought in the multi-annual programmes for 2004-2006 and the operational programme for 2005”,

presidency officials reported.

Luxembourg’s priorities for its presidency of the EU during the first half of 2005 will include agreeing the EU’s budget (‘financial perspectives’) for 2007 to 2013, reviewing the Lisbon process and strengthening the stability and growth pact, Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn and Deputy Foreign Minister Nicolas Schmidt told reporters on 21 December.

Presenting the presidency’s priorities, the two Ministers also noted that accession treaties were likely to be signed with Bulgaria and Romania in April, accession negotiations would be launched with Croatia and US President George Bush would meet EU heads of state on 22 February.

In the area of Justice and Home Affairs, ‘great importance’ is attached to the external dimension. According to the Luxembourg presidency’s official website,

“strengthening partnerships with the countries and regions of origin as well as those of transit is a matter that will remain on the European Union agenda.”

Return policy is also seen as particularly important, with the presidency expecting the Commission to produce a proposal for legislation on minimum standards for return. It also plans to start negotiations on a long-term residence directive for refugees and other persons in need of protection, once the Commission has published its draft proposal.

Together with the Commission, the presidency said it would ensure that work continues to create the appropriate structures linking the asylum services of the member states and providing member states with assistance in processing requests for asylum. The Luxembourg presidency attaches great importance to improving cooperation over the control of common external borders between member states. To this end it will ensure that the European agency for the management of operational cooperation at external borders is launched as scheduled and under the most appropriate conditions, on 1 May 2005.

Actualités Sociale reported on 1 January that social NGOs have criticised another priority of the presidency—the transformation of the current European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia into a Fundamental Rights 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”.

From Actualités Sociale Hebdomadaire N°2388 of 1 January 2005

The Justice and Home Affairs priorities of the Luxembourg Presidency can be found by visiting:

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

List of countries holding EU Presidency until 2020

On 26 November 2004, the Committee of Permanent Representatives agreed a draft timetable of presidencies along the lines of the Constitutional Treaty. After the current system ends with the Finnish presidency in 2006, three member states will share the presidency for an 18 months period. Most 18-month periods have one large member state, one medium-size and one new member state. The timetable takes account of Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in the future. The new timetable will begin with Germany, Portugal and Slovenia holding the presidency from January 2007 to end of June 2008.

JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY COUNCILS

Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusions on integration

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council of 19 November 2004 adopted conclusions on common basic principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union, establishing 11 guidelines, in order to try to build a European common framework for integration.

“Mastering the language is unavoidable to succeed in becoming integrated, and employment is also a very important aspect”,

said Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk. The JHA Council provisional conclusions mirror elements of ECRE’s positions on integration, notably the core idea that integration is a two-way process:

“Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of member states.”

The conclusions do not mention refugees specifically, however, nor their particular needs. The 11 common basic principles adopted are:

1. Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of member states.

2. Integration implies respect for the basic values of the European Union.

3. Employment is a key part of the integration process. It is central to the participation of immigrants, to the contributions immigrants make to the host society, and to the process of making such contributions visible.

4. Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history and institutions is indispensable to integration. Enabling immigrants to acquire this basic knowledge is essential to successful integration.

5. Efforts in education are critical to preparing immigrants, and particularly their descendants, to be more successful and more active participants in society.

6. Access for immigrants to institutions, as well as to public and private goods and services, on a basis equal to national citizens and in a non-discriminatory way, is a critical foundation for better integration.

7. Frequent interaction between immigrants and member state citizens is a fundamental mechanism for integration. Shared forums, inter-cultural dialogue, education about immigrants and immigrant cultures, and stimulating living conditions in urban environments enhance the interactions between immigrants and member state citizens.

8. The practice of diverse cultures and religions is guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and must be safeguarded, unless practices conflict with other inviolable European rights or national law.

9. The participation of immigrants in the democratic process and in the formulation of integration policies and measures, especially at the local level, supports their integration.

10. Mainstreaming integration policies and measures in all relevant policy portfolios and levels of government and public services is an important consideration in public-policy formation and implementation.

11. Developing clear goals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms are necessary to adjust policy, evaluate progress on integration and to make the exchange of information more effective.

The common basic principles for immigrant integration policy, together with explanations, can be found online at:

http://www.eu2004.nl/default.asp?CMS_TCP=tcpAsset&id=79D039A4718F4FBA922E00FA3023D337X1X51255X07

COUNCIL DIRECTIVES

Justice and Home Affairs Council agrees Procedures Directive

The Justice and Home Affairs Council of 19 November agreed on a “general approach” on the Procedures Directive (amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for granting and withdrawing refugee status), amending the directive slightly in order to postpone the adoption of the common list of safe countries and forward the directive to the Parliament for its opinion before adopting the directive.

The purpose of the directive is to set out equivalent procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. It includes: basic principles and guarantees in relation to the asylum process, right to interview, procedures at first instance and appeal procedures. The Council decided to postpone establishing a common list of safe countries of origin until after the adoption of the procedures directive, because it was unable to agree unanimously on any list.

Some 10 countries were examined: Benin, Botswana, Cap Verde, Ghana, Senegal, Mali, Mauritius, Costa Rica, Chile and Uruguay. Estonia, Finland, Germany and Sweden were reported to be opposed to the inclusion of three of the five African countries on the list. The absence of a common list, however, does not prevent the application of the concept of countries of safe origin, as each member state is free to adopt its own list. Moreover, a decision on the list has simply been postponed until after the directive has been adopted. After that, the list will be decided by qualified majority vote.

http://www.eu2004.nl/default.asp?CMS_TCP=tcpAsset&id=79D039A4718F4FBA922E00FA3023D337X1X51255X07

Justice and Home Affairs Council adopts Conclusions on Best Practice on Return

The Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted on 2 December 2004 Council conclusions on best practices on return with regard to specific countries of third country nationals illegally staying on the territory of member states.

Best practices identified by member states include: promoting assisted voluntary return programmes for sustainable return, where appropriate in cooperation with international or non-governmental organizations; choosing the mode of return operations on a case-by-case basis, for example by marking individual security assessments, giving serious consideration to the possibilities for chartered flights and promoting the organisation of joint return operations; return counselling at the earliest opportunity and communicating clearly to the returnees the availability of voluntary return, while maintaining the option to enforce their return.

The Council conclusions on best practices on return are available at:

http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st15/st15122.en04.pdf

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

European Neighbourhood Policy: the first Action Plans

Moldova, Ukraine, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are the first of the EU’s neighbours to agree Action Plans that will make concrete the European Union’s new offer under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). These first plans—approved in December 2004—are the product of negotiations with each country, and in each case the plan is designed to reflect the specific interests of the country concerned. The Action Plans will help strengthen democracy, good governance, the rule of law and human rights as well as economic modernisation. The concrete benefits include the chance to participate in some EU programmes and a stake in the single market. In addition, the EU is offering more targeted help to tackle cross-border issues, such as migration and trafficking, as well as improved energy and transport links to the EU.

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm

DG Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) becomes DG Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JLS)

The European Commission’s Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs (DG JAI) has changed its name to Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JLS). Its mandate and structure remain unchanged.

<http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/index_en.htm>

Fundamental rights and the fight against discrimination to be essential priorities for new Commissioners

Opening an anti-discrimination conference in The Hague on 23 November, the European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Vladimir Spidla said,

“fundamental rights and the fight against discrimination will be essential priorities for the newly appointed Commission. The European Union has adopted a charter that represents a major advance in respect of fundamental rights, as it proclaims that civil, political, economic, social and environmental rights are indivisible. This charter has now been incorporated into the new Constitutional Treaty signed by heads of Government and State on 29 October.”

Mr Spidla said his department would conduct a feasibility study of all forms of discrimination in early 2005, and produce by the end of that year a communication presenting a framework for the development of Europe’s anti-discrimination policy.

http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/04/513&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://www.euobserver.com/?aid=17810&sid=9

Commission adopts code of conduct for Commissioners

On 24 November the new European Commission adopted a code of Conduct for Commissioners, adding a measure desired by the European Parliament to ensure that Commissioners pledge to resign

“when I ask them to”,

Commission president José Manuel Barroso told journalists. Mr Barroso said the Commission had been given strong support by the European Parliament, and could therefore take on the challenges facing it.

<http://www.agenceurope.com>

First European handbook on integration of immigrants launched by European Commission

The European Commission presented the first edition of a European handbook on integration at a ministerial conference on integration policy held in Groningen, The Netherlands, on 9 to 11 November. The handbook aims to promote cooperation at the European level on integration by facilitating the exchange of experience and information. It is targeted at policy-makers and practitioners at the local, regional, national and EU level. It contains best practices and lessons learned from the 25 member states of the European Union in the following areas: introduction courses for newly arrived immigrants and recognised refugees, civic participation, and indicators. Its aim is to promote European cooperation on integration by facilitating the exchange of experience and information. A second edition of the handbook is expected in 2006.

The handbook is downloadable from:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration/doc/handbook_en.pdf

Commission report on Roma calls for review of border controls

A new report by the European Commission on the situation of Roma in Europe notes the impact on Romany communities of ever more stringent measures for the treatment of migrants and refugees. The situation of Roma in an Enlarged EU (DG Social Affairs, 2004) recommends that member states review their border control and expulsion policies to ensure that they confirm to EU social inclusion goals and do not discriminate or violate EU human rights standards.

Impacts on Roma communities include:

• Racially discriminatory border policies and practices in a number of member states (most notably the United Kingdom);

• Collective expulsions of Roma by the Governments of a number of member states (and for which two Governments [Belgium and Italy] have been found in violation of the European human rights law by the European Court of Human Rights, or have settled out of court due to imminent findings of violation);

• The erosion of protection for refugees.

The report notes that the Romany population of some member states, such as Austria, may be comprised of up to 80% persons who are not the citizens of an EU member state. The continued failure to integrate such persons, who may be long-term residents in a European Union member state, gives rise to psychological as well as social and economic harm to individuals. The report finds that the EC anti-discrimination directive (Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/43/EC)

“is distinctly at odds with international human rights law,”

where it excludes third-country nationals from the right to be free from discrimination.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/prog/studies_en.htm

Experts’ report calls for strengthening of EU action against trafficking in human beings

On 22 December, the European Commission Experts’ Group on Trafficking in Human Beings presented a report on strengthening EU action against trafficking in human beings to Franco Frattini, the Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security. On the basis of the report’s recommendations, the Commission will issue a communication in 2005 that will develop an EU plan for common standards, best practices and mechanisms to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings. Mr Frattini said:

“Trafficking in human beings is one of the most horrible forms of crime and a resolute EU response is necessary.”

The report makes key recommendations: Special attention must be paid to cooperation and coordination at both the national and EU level; prevention is an issue for countries not only of origin, but destination; Governments should ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to efficiently target trafficking in human beings as a serious crime.

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/1526&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN

Commission takes member states to European Court of Justice over transposition of directives on expulsions, temporary protection and carrier sanctions

The European Commission has launched infringement actions at the European Court of Justice against Luxembourg, France and Greece over their failure to transpose the directive on mutual recognition of expulsions (Directive 2001/40/EC) into national law. It is also taking action against Luxembourg and the Netherlands over the carrier sanctions directive (2001/51/EC) and against France, the Netherlands and the UK over the Temporary Protection directive (2001/55/EC). The UK announced on 20 December that it would adopt the Temporary Protection directive and change its immigration rules accordingly early in 2005.

The listings are: at

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:314:SOM:EN:HTML

and

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:006:SOM:EN:HTML

UK Home Office Press Release:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Commission presents Green Paper on legal immigration policy

The European Commission has published a green paper seeking to rekindle the debate on a European policy in the field of legal immigration, after the Council rejected a proposal for a directive presented in July 2001. Commissioner for Freedom, Security and Justice, Franco Frattini told a press conference in early December that he hoped to obtain

“the support of civil society and the support of the European Parliament” during the debate on the Green Paper, in order to convince member states that

“a shared strategy of economic immigration is very important at a European level.”

Throughout the debate on the Hague Programme, Germany, supported by Austria, Denmark, Greece, Estonia and Slovakia, successfully fought to keep a right to veto for each member state in this field of legal immigration. Under the Hague Programme, an action programme will be adopted for legal immigration.

The Green Paper is available at:

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

EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Groningen Ministerial Conference on Integration, 9 to 11 November 2004

European Ministers responsible for integration came together on 9 to 11 November in Groningen, The Netherlands, to discuss the political urgency of an effective response to integration challenges at the local, regional and international level.

The conference was convened with three primary goals: to send a strong political signal that successful integration is vital to the growth, stability and cohesion of individual member states and the European Union; to start a political discussion on integration, focusing on challenges and practical solutions; to start giving practical relevance to a shared European vision via an exchange of best practices.

The presidency conclusions of the conference note that, “in line with the Hague Programme calling for a structural exchange of information and for strengthened coordination, the ministers responsible for integration urge the Council, the member states, and the Commission to pursue coordinated and effective working relations between those responsible for integration policies at the local, regional, national and European levels.”

http://www.eu2004.nl

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-132240-16&type=News

Presidency Conclusions of Euro-Mediterranean meeting

Foreign ministers of EU countries and Mediterranean partners meeting in The Hague on 29 to 30 November, confirmed the importance of an integrated approach to migration, recognising that migration is a positive factor for socio-economic development and integration of the whole region and that there is a common interest in fighting illegal migration comprehensively, in particular upholding respect for the rule of law and the rights of asylum seekers and legal migrants. Ministers also reaffirmed their existing commitment to the conclusion of readmission agreements.

<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/er/82876.pdf>

QMV and co-decision on asylum from 1 January

The Hague Programme, adopted on 5 November 2004, included a commitment to change the decision-making system for most EC immigration and asylum law no later than 1 April 2005, increasing Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council and the use of the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament. On 22 December the Agriculture and Fisheries Council formally adopted a decision extending qualified majority voting and co-decision to most EC immigration and asylum law, to take effect from 1 Jan. 2005. Decisions on legal immigration will continue to require unanimity within the Council.

According to Statewatch, it is unclear how the decision affects decision making on asylum issues before the asylum procedures directive is adopted. It asked:

“Can EU asylum measures be adopted already by QMV in all areas except asylum procedures, or in no areas at all until the asylum procedures directive is adopted? The answer is uncertain.”

For more information, see:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/index.html

The decision was published in the Official Journal on 31 December 2004 (OJ L 396):

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:396:SOM:EN:HTML

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Hearing of JHA Commissioner-designate Franco Frattini before Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)

Former Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini expressed disappointment at the decision by the European Council on 5 November to exclude legal immigration when the legislative process on Justice and Home Affairs issues moves to qualified majority voting and co-decision. Mr Frattini was speaking at a hearing of the citizen’s rights (LIBE) committee on 15 November, on his candidature for the Justice and Home Affairs portfolio of the new Barroso Commission. He added that the Commission and Parliament must work together on freedom, security and justice. When asked by German Green MEP Cem Ozdemir about the forced return to Libya of illegal immigrants arriving in Lampedusa, he refused to

“comment on the national legislation of a member state”.

On the idea of processing camps in third countries for immigrants and asylum seekers coming to Europe, Mr. Frattini said the “cardinal principle” was that these third countries should have signed up to the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. He added that without common European laws protecting the rights of migrants:

“We can’t even think about having detention centres.”

http://euobserver.com/?aid=17753&sid=9

Bulletin Quotidien, No. 8828, Wednesday 17 November 2004, pp. 4-5

LIBE Committee adopts report on access to durable solutions and a single asylum procedure

The European Parliament Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), adopted by a narrow majority, on 24 November, a draft report by Jean Lambert, MEP (Greens) on two Commission communications: “Improving Access to Durable Solutions”, and “A more efficient common European asylum system: the single procedure as the next step”.

The plenary session in Strasbourg has rejected in a report published on 15 December the idea of establishing holding centres for asylum seekers in north Africa. Lambert’s report broadly endorses the European Commission’s approach to two key aspects of the next phase of EU refugee asylum and refugee policy, as set out in its communications, “Improving Access to Durable Solutions” and “The Single Asylum Procedure as the Next Step”.

The Commission calls for better cooperation and consistency between EU member states on asylum decisions, including improving the quality of information on asylum seekers’ countries of origin. But it also questions the use of the safe third country concept and proposes a body to monitor the return of asylum seekers whose claims are rejected. Representatives of ECRE, UNHCR and Medécins Sans Frontières participated in hearings on the report prior to the plenary debate.

http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/libe_home.htm

http://www.greens-era.org

International day of action for the elimination of violence against women

The Socialist group of the European Parliament launched a programme on 25 November to mark the International Day of Action for the Elimination of Violence against Women. German Social Democrat Lissy Groner MEP (PES), said:

“Member states should guarantee asylum to victims of gender-based violence of third countries, such as trafficking and female genital mutilation.”

The action plan proposed by the MEP and sent to the European Commission comprises five points: fighting trafficking, protection and improvement of women’s rights; compilation of national and European statistics; campaigning across Europe for zero tolerance of violence against women; development of the EU’s Daphne II programme; and the designation of 2006 as European year of action to combat violence against women.

<http://www.agenceurope.com>

Fight against trafficking of human beings key point of Bulgaria accession report

On 30 November, the Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a report by British Conservative member Geoffry van Orden on Bulgarian accession to the EU. The report welcomed the conclusion of technical negotiations, which were to be formally concluded at the European Council of 16/17 December, and judged that Bulgaria should be able to join the EU on 1 January 2007. The report called for more efforts to be made to fight trafficking in human beings, especially women and children, by creating a reliable database of ill-treated and missing persons, and a reliable witness protection system. The report suggests that the integration of the Romany people should be accelerated by such measures as providing them with access to education, healthcare and employment, but that the Romany people themselves must also take their share of responsibility.

http://www.agenceurope.com

CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY

Civil society, local and regional authorities and European social partners to support European Constitution

Representatives of civil society, European social partners and local and regional authorities voiced their support for the European constitutional treaty and undertook to promote it at grass roots level, at a public hearing held in Brussels on 25 November by the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the European Economic and Social Committee.

Agence Europe reported the concern of Amnesty International’s Susie Alegre that the Charter of Fundamental Rights. although a “welcome innovation”, suffers from restrictions that demonstrate how member states are reluctant to move forward. Everything will depend on the determination of member states to protect these rights, otherwise the constitution will have little impact.

<http://www.agenceurope.com>

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

More than two thirds of European citizens in favour of European constitution

The results of a Eurobarometer survey carried out between 2 October and 8 November 2004, show that 68% of EU citizens are in favour of the idea of a European constitution—5 percentage points more than at the beginning of the year. Around eight out of 10 (81%) in Belgium support the idea of the text), Slovenia (80%), Germany (79%) and Luxembourg (77%).

The Europeans least keen on an EU constitution, come from Denmark (44%) and the United Kingdom (49%). The European constitution was published on 16 December in the Official Journal, and is available at:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML

EU constitution endorsed by Parliament’s plenary session

On 12 January the European Parliament voted to endorse a report by British Labour MEP Richard Corbett and Spanish Partido Popular MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo approving the European constitution and unreservedly recommending its ratification.

The European Parliament endorsed two major amendments: its right, conferred by the constitution, to recommend improvements to the constitution; and the close linking of the common external action service to the Commission as soon as possible, to strengthen the European community.

http://www.agenceurope.com

MISCELLANEOUS

New European Network of Regional and Local Authorities on Asylum and Immigration (ERLAI)

Some 25 regions, cities and local authorities from seven EU member states with an interest in immigration and asylum have established the European Network of Regional and Local Authorities on Asylum and Immigration (ERLAI). ERLAI brings together Brussels-based officers working on justice and home affairs for their respective regions and localities.

The group intends to establish regular dialogue with the European institutions and other relevant Brussels actors and networks. On asylum and immigration, ERLAI intends to ensure that proper account is taken of the regional, city and local dimension in European policy development. It intends also to promote awareness of good policy and practice in other regions, cities and localities and explore and facilitate joint funding bids. For more information, contact erlai@euroinbox.com

UNHCR PUBLICATIONS

Moldova: Situation Analysis and Trend Assessment

This paper discusses the political development of the Moldovan Republic. After a general overview of recent political, social and economic developments, the paper gives a detailed analysis of the human rights situation in general and the situation of refugees, asylum seekers, returnees and IDPs in particular.

UNHCR commissioned country analysis, October 2004

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.pdf?CATEGORY=RSDCOI&id=418f804a4

Ukraine: Situation Analysis and Trend Assessment

The first part of the paper gives a detailed analysis of the political development of the Ukraine since the 1990s. The second part focuses especially on the human rights situation in general and the situation of vulnerable groups in particular.

UNHCR commissioned country analysis, November 2004 http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.pdf?CATEGORY=RSDCOI&id=419333064

IAS response to implementation of the EU Directive on Common Reception Standards

While welcoming the Directive in principle, the British Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) expresses its concern in this paper that the rights of asylum applicants should not be reduced to the lowest common denominator. IAS urges

that the minimum standards should be seen as exactly that- the absolute minimum.

IAS responds to implementation of EU Council Directive on common reception standards for asylum seekers, 8 December 2004

http://www.iasuk.org/C2B/document_tree/ViewADocument.asp?ID=150&CatID=42

British Refugee Council's paper on Children in Detention

This paper, second in a series of policy papers on protection issues, outlines the Refugee Council’s opposition to the detention of children under the UK Immigration Act. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/policy_briefings/child_detention_nov03.pdf

Catholic church publishes asylum seekers guide

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales has published a guide to the Church's teachings on refugees and migrants. The booklet outlines the position and teaching of the Catholic Church in the UK and internationally with regard to itinerant peoples, and gives a summary of major Church documents on refugees.

The Dispossessed, Office for Refugee Policy, 29 November 2004

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_041129dis.shtml

“Rights in Exile”: new book compares rhetoric with reality

Based on the analysis of rich ethnographic data, the book Rights in Exile discusses the gap between human rights norms and the mandates of international organisations on the one hand, and the reality on the ground, on the other.

Guglielmo Verdirame et. al., Rights in Exile, December 2004, Berghahn Books, 480 pgs

http://www.asylumpolicy.info/rights.htm

British Refugee Council's submission to the Education and Skills Committee inquiry into the Government Green Paper “Every Child Matters”

This submission highlights some of the concerns expressed as a response to the Green Paper Every Child Matters, specifically with regards to children of asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors, as well as commenting on the progress made since its publication. The Green Paper’s stated aim is to develop recommendations on the provision of child protection across all public, private and voluntary organisations.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/policy_briefings/esc_enquiry_nov04.pdf

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/publications/pub007.htm#esc

Evaluation of UN policy towards IDPs calls for better protection

The Brookings Institution/Johns Hopkin Project on Internal Displacement and the Internal Displacement Unit of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs dispatched a team into the field in order to examine how the UN has been providing protection to internally displaced persons and how to make that response more effective. The team visited nine countries and produced this 102-page study. The study finds that the UN's approach to protecting vulnerable populations is still

“largely ad hoc and driven more by the personalities and convictions of individuals on the ground than by an institutional, system-wide agenda”.

The study proposes that the United Nations make the protection of civilians and the prevention of displacement a core part of its mandate and offers concrete suggestions.

Simon Bagshaw and Diane Paul, Protect or Neglect? Toward a More Effective United Nations Approach to the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, November 2004
http://www.brookings.org/fp/projects/idp/protection_survey.htm

Numbers of Undocumented Migrants living in Europe

The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) has gathered on its website a summary of links to recent publications, such as the UN World Economic and Social Survey, that contain numbers of undocumented migrants.

http://www.picum.org/HOMEPAGE/Numbers/Numbers.htm

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

European Handbook on Integration for Policy-Makers and Practitioners,

Brussels 2004

The European Commission presented the first edition of the “European Handbook on Integration” in November 2004. The handbook was issued by an independent expert, the Migration Policy Group, in close cooperation with the network of National Contact Points on Integration created by the European Commission. It is the result of the conclusions of three seminars held last year on introduction programmes, civil participation and integration indicators, as well as the exchange of information between policy-makers and governmental and non-governmental practitioners of the 25 member states.

Integration is considered a two-way process that involves all members of society. The handbook is presented and divided into three chapters, each of them dealing with a core theme on the integration of immigrants and refugees:

- Introduction programmes: A special focus on practices developed in the member states concerning newcomers and recognised refugees is presented. The chapter gives an overview of general principles and a compilation of best practices, including concrete examples of projects held on local, regional or national levels by both state and non-state actors.

- Participation in civic and political life: This chapter discusses the possibility of member states involving immigrants more actively in society—in the private and public market place and the political arena. It also questions the possibility of allowing electoral rights at least on a local level as well as promoting inter-faith dialogue.

- Development of indicators: Different levels and categories of indicators should be used to measure integration and assess its impact. These could be used

for further planning of projects.

The issues are discussed and presented as best practice or recommendations that could be considered as guidelines when developing policy or setting up projects. The aim of this handbook is to present different practices developed in member states and to consider their outcome. This exchange of experience and information should help promote co-operation on integration on a European level.

The common goal is to enable immigrants to participate actively in society and progressively become self-sufficient. The handbook can be updated with new projects and analyses of ongoing projects and outcomes. Other integration issues will be added and a second edition is expected in 2006.

The handbook can be downloaded at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration/doc/handbook_en.pdf

Memorial and EHRAC focus new bulletin on Russia

Memorial and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) have produced their second bulletin on international human rights and advocacy, with a focus on issues of interest to those working in or with the Russian Federation. The winter 2004 edition focuses on UN human rights mechanisms and contains articles on Russian domestic procedure, alternative reports to the UN Committee Against Torture, the exhaustion of domestic remedies under the European convention on human rights and case reports. Issues are available in Russian and English. For more information contact Claire Rimmer

(Crimmer@ecre.org).

New factsheets on EU Justice, Freedom and Security policy

The European Commission has produced factsheets in 20 languages on justice, freedom and security policies or activities. The most recent cover the European Refugee Fund, immigration, and the EU constitutional treaty, trafficking in human beings, Eurojust, Eurodac and terrorism. The fact sheets are available at:

<http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/key_issues_en.htm>

ECRE DOCUMENTATION SERVICE

COUNCIL OF EUROPE