europe’s role in the global refugee protection system chris nash legal officer

Europe’s role in the global refugee protection system

Chris NashLegal Officer

What is ECRE?• A pan-European network of 80 refugee-

assisting non-governmental organisations in 30 European countries

• Finnish Members:– Finnish Red Cross– Refugee Advice Centre

• Executive Committee consisting of representatives from Member Agencies

• Offices in Brussels and London

ECRE’s Mission

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) is concerned with the needs of all individuals seeking refuge and protection within Europe. It promotes the protection and integration of refugees based on the values of human dignity, human rights and an ethic of solidarity.

What does ECRE do?• Capacity-building:

– ELENA: European Legal Network on Asylum

– Eastern Europe– South East Europe

• Information• Policy analysis and advocacy

– ECRAN

An Agenda for Change

› Take the lead in promoting international solidarity

and co-operation

› Better share their responsibility between themselves

› Take a fairer share of the global responsibility

for protecting refugees

SHARING RESPONSIBILITY


PROTECTION IN REGION OF ORIGIN

› Strengthen protection in regions of origin

› Put human rights standards at the forefront of improving protection

› Improve protection in Europeas well as in other regions


› Offer a long-term future to refugeesthrough resettlement

› Start a national resettlement programme and expand existing schemes

RESETTLEMENT

› Establish a Europe-wide resettlement programme

led by the European Union› Develop resettlement as a complement

rather than a substitute for existing asylum systems


› Adapt border managementto ensure access to Europe for refugees

› Create legal channelsto enable refugees to travel to Europe

ACCESS TO EUROPE


ASYLUM SYSTEMS

› Give every asylum seeker a fair hearing

› Invest in better decisionsearly in the asylum procedure

› Monitor decision-makers to ensure refugees receive protection

› Share the best practice, not the worst


INTEGRATION

› Welcome refugees

› Enable refugees to improve or adapt their skills from day one

› Celebrate cultural diversity

› Afford refugees similar rights to nationals


RETURN

› Ensure return is safe, dignified and sustainable

› Only return people after a fair & thorough examination of their asylum claim

› Grant status & rights to asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who cannot return

› Prioritise voluntary returnover mandatory or forced return

› Monitor returns systematically


CEA

S

A Common European Asylum System – fundamental objectives?

1)Achieving a level playing field for all asylum seekers entering the EU

1)Securing genuine burden sharing among EU Member States by reforming Dublin II


C

EA

S

The rationale of harmonisation• Common solution to asylum

management in an EU without internal borders

• The Tampere goal of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS)

• First phase minimum standards instruments (Temporary Protection, Reception, Qualification and Procedures Directives)


CE

AS

The reality of harmonisation• Difficult negotiations – lowest

common denominator approach• Huge differences in quality and

capacity of asylum systems across EU• Varying recognition rates• Unfair burdens – Dublin


CE

AS

The Hague Programme

• "Practical and collaborative cooperation" among Member States

• Develop "appropriate structures" to coordinate leading to European Support Office

• Reiterating goal of completing CEAS by 2010


CE

AS

Communication on Strengthened Practical Cooperation• Single Procedure

• Country of Origin Information (COI)

• Particular Pressures

• Asylum Cooperation Network


CE

AS

ECRE’s Proposals

• ECRE Way Forward paper "Towards Fair & Efficient Asylum Systems in Europe" (Sept 2005)

• Staffing, training, COI, expert support teams, quality assessment mechanisms, EU support office

• Welcome frontloading and involving independent experts

• Concerns - transparency and accountability

• Importance of independent quality monitoring?


CE

AS

COI – next steps?

• Legal & political imperatives - Art 4 Qualification Directive & Art 7 Procedures Directive

• "Accurate, reliable and transparent" COI • Common portal (limitations?) • Common Guidelines (see UNHCR 2004 position) • EU COI database • Need to go further? - added value of EU

Documentation Centre (more resource-effective, avoids duplication, and increases efficiency)

• Scope for Q&A panel/team of independent COI experts (REFINFO of Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board)

• Role of training (ACCORD COI Training Project) • Role of monitoring (COI Monitoring Initiative in

Central Europe)


Other areas of practical cooperation to improve RSD?

• Sharing best practice guidelines (e.g. on treatment of unaccompanied minors)

• Training and accreditation of decision-makers (e.g. on interview technique, working with interpreters, vulnerable groups, assessing credibility, international refugee law etc)

• Quality monitoring (UNHCR's UK Quality Initiative)

• Project-led delivery of Hague Programme objectives through ARGO or ERF (e.g. ARGO project to develop a European Asylum Curriculum (EAC) - reference group/role of independent experts)

CE

AS


The Dublin II Regulation• Legal basis under Art 63 EC Treaty• Replaced the Dublin Convention and

entered into force on 17 March 2003 with its provisions becoming binding 6 months later in September 2003

• Binding on all EU MS and additionally Norway and Iceland. Switzerland is in process of joining.

• Determines which Member State (MS) is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged by a third country national

DU

BL

IN


Why change it?• 0.3% recognition rate in Greece, nearly

50% in Austria• Take the plight of Chechens – varying

recognition rates and lack of psychiatric care facilities in Central Europe

• Consider the human cost• Does it make sense? Germany: 30%

Dublin cases – take back as many as transfer under Dublin?!

DU

BL

IN


ECRE Report on Dublin II• Individuals denied access to an asylum

procedure and placed at risk of refoulement• Increased detention to enforce Dublin

transfers• Splits families & prevents people joining

relatives• Harsh impact on separated children • Lack of reception conditions e.g. for torture

survivors• Lack of information to applicants• Inconsistent, inefficient & resource

intensive

DU

BL

IN


ECRE’s Call to VP Frattini

• Guarantee access to a full and fair procedure for all Dublin cases

• Better ensure family unification• Exempt separated children from Dublin II• Ensure adequate reception conditions

and restrict use of detention• Start the debate on need for

fundamental reform

DU

BL

IN


Fundamental flaws requiring more intrinsic reform

• Lack of harmonisation and inequality of protection across EU – encourages secondary movement

• Creates unfair burdens on states bordering EU and is in conflict with Art 63(2)(b) of the Amsterdam Treaty

• Prompts further restrictive controls on external borders (witness Ceuta/Melilla, Canaries etc)

DU

BL

IN


Replacing Dublin altogether

• ECRE’s alternative system for determining which state is responsible for deciding a claim

• Supported by the creation of meaningful financial burden-sharing instruments

• Free movement for recognised refugees

DU

BL

IN


Concluding Comments

• Reviving the spirit of Tampere• EU should share best practice not worst

laws• Frontloading – better asylum

management by creating fairer and more efficient procedures

• Access to protection • Responsibility sharing and setting an

example in the global context


Shared goals?

• Working towards increased cooperation between states, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations

Brussels office

205 rue Belliard, Box 141040 BrusselsBelgiumTelephone: +32 (0) 2 514 5939Fax : +32 (0) 2 514 5922E-mail: [email protected]

London office

103 Worship Street London EC2A 2DFUnited KingdomTelephone: +44 (0) 20 7377 7556Fax: +44 (0) 20 7377 7586E-mail: [email protected]

www.ecre.org

europe’s role in the global refugee protection system chris nash legal officer

Documents

europe slide

change protection

responsibility slide

change return

london slide

worst slide

change asylum systems

change ceas