Presentation on theme: "A Common European Asylum System towards 2012 -Conference on Migration in Europe – control versus rights Oslo, 11 February 2011 Liv Feijen Senior Regional."— Presentation transcript:
A Common European Asylum System towards 2012 -Conference on Migration in Europe – control versus rights Oslo, 11 February 2011 Liv Feijen Senior Regional Legal Officer UNHCR Stockholm
2 EU Asylum Trends 1999-2009 UNHCR stats. (1999 from Eurostat)
3 EU Member States with largest asylum- seeker numbers: 2004-9 Source: UNHCR annual stats
4 Top 10 countries of origin of asylum seekers in the EU (2004-9) Source: UNHCR annual stats 200420052006200720082009 Afghanistan 6,8526,3237,6127,65313,51419,393 Somalia 6,8925,4825,9969,32717,11218,653 Russia 28,01519,46513,27116,69818,18217,887 Iraq 8,20410,61119,37538,28627,60317,554 Serbia (pre 2006 – figs = Serbia & Montenegro) 19,283 19,574 13,66212,66812,63316,971 Nigeria 10,2536,7455,1535,17411,2809,971 Pakistan 9,0526,3736,28413,19312,0079,562 Iran 8,8827,7227,0655,8126,7347,588 Turkey 13,98310,3107,4275,8176,2985,868 China 11,4397,5165,4505,6214,2815,410
Treaty on Functioning of the EU, Article 78, Dec 2009 Explicit goal of establishing a ‘common policy on asylum’ – with a ‘common procedure’ & ‘uniform status’ Asylum policy must be in accordance with 1951 Convention and other relevant treaties Extended scope for national courts to refer asylum questions to the Court of Justice EU accession to ECHR
7 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU entered force 2009 ‘ The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention…’ article 18, ‘Right to asylum’ ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that s/he would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ - art 19
Stockholm Programme, 2010-2014 Aims for a ‘common [asylum] procedure’ and ‘uniform status’ by 2012 European Commission asked to: Evaluate existing/propose new instruments Evaluate and review tasks of European Asylum Support Office (EASO) after 5 years Create mechanism for monitoring quality
Stockholm Programme (2) Commitment to responsibility-sharing in EU – but Dublin as a ‘cornerstone’ of the Common European Asylum System External dimension: support for UNHCR; ‘new means of access’ to protection in third countries Subject to an EC report (2014) - foresees EU accession to 1951 Convention
Completion of CEAS Legislative standards Development of jurisprudence Practical co-operation Responsibility-sharing mechanisms Information gathering, evaluation
Gaps identified by UNHCR Distribution of applications for asylum Outcome of applications -quality of decisions Gaps in the procedures Reception conditions
Proposal Recast Qualification Directive PURPOSE: simplify decision-making, streamline procedures for granting rights, coherence with ECtHR), higher protection standards, harmonizaion of protection standards; Art 7 Actors of protection: In practice; clans tribes, NGOs ec. Proposal: effective, durable, willingness, significant, not-temporary protection; Art 8 Internal protection: ECtHR judgment Salah Sheikh, no IFA if practical obstacles, able to travel, gain admittance and settle in alternative location; Art 9(3) Casual link: both when connection between acts of persecution and reasons for persecution and the absence of protection against such acts; Recital 29, Art 10(d) Particular social group: gender given due consideration.
Proposal Recast Qualification Directive Cessation: inserting 1(C)(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention; Recognition of qualification Integration, accommodation, benefits etc Family members
Proposal Recast Reception Conditions Directive Scope of the Directive; Access to labour market; Access to material reception conditions; Detention; Persons with special needs; Implementation
Proposal Recast Asylum Procedures Directive Access to procedures; Procedural guarantees first instance; Accelerated procedures; Safe country of origin; Access to effective remedies.
Propsal Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (cont) Requires written reasons for decisions, even in grants of status; Reduce grounds for omitting personal interviews; Medico-legal reports/evidence must be permitted for people who have suffered torture/serious harm;