The new EU Migration Agenda takes shape: analysis of the first new measures

Steve Peers

This week the European Commission took its first steps towards implementing its new EU Migration Agenda(previously discussed here). A number of the items in the agenda have already been addressed (for instance, the military mission against smugglers on the Libyan coast, as discussed here). Others will be addressed later: a broader reform of legal migration law and changes to the rules on asylum procedures and the ‘Dublin’ rules on responsibility for asylum-seekers.

The first batch of measures contained five different elements. First of all, the Commission launched a public consultation on the reform of the existing EU law providing for a ‘Blue Card’ for the admission of highly-skilled non-EU migrants. I have commented previously here on the implementation of this law and the reforms to it which should be adopted.

Secondly, the Commission released an Action Plan against migrant smuggling. This mainly elaborates upon several ideas mentioned already in the main agenda. This includes: a revision of EU anti-smuggling law, planned for 2016, to increase smugglers’ penalties and clarify humanitarian exceptions from the rules; possible new rules on immigration liaison officers in 2016; a Handbook on expulsion in 2015; a possible revision of the rules on trafficking victims, in 2016, to include ‘victims’ of smuggling; a revision of the legislation on Frontex (the EU border agency), to give it more powers relating to expulsion; changes to the rules on the Schengen Information System in 2015-16, so that all Schengen Member States’ entry bans are applicable across the Schengen area; a handbook on prevention of migrant smuggling in 2017; readmission agreements with sub-Saharan countries; and stronger enforcement of the rules prohibiting employment of irregular migrants. Most of these measures concern all irregular migrants, not just those who were smuggled to the EU.

Thirdly, the Commission adopted a Recommendation on the resettlement of refugees directly from outside the EU to EU Member States. As a Recommendation it is non-binding, and as an act of the Commission, it does not need the approval of the Council or the European Parliament. According to the new Immigration Agenda, there will be EU funds attached to each resettled refugee, so Member States are encouraged to resettle people. It is a useful measure to ensure that a bigger number of persons are rescued without having to risk their lives or pay smugglers to cross the Mediterranean, although the overall numbers are likely to be modest.  In the event that Member States do not make use of the Recommendation to resettle refugees, the Migration Agenda promises a proposal for a binding measure, although it might be hard to find sufficient support in Council for its adoption.

Fourthly, the Commission issued guidanceon the fingerprinting of asylum-seekers, as provided for in the EU’s Eurodac legislation, which sets up a database of such fingerprints in order to apply the ‘Dublin’ rules more effectively. In the Commission’s view, any irregular border-crosser who refuses to give fingerprints ought to be detained, expelled and subjected to an entry ban, in accordance with EU asylum law and the Returns Directive. Alternatively, Member States could force them to take fingerprints, with a possible exception for pregnant women and minors. Frankly, the correct application of the EU’s Dublin system is not worth the health of life of a single unborn child.

Moreover, the Commission appears to be confused about the details of the relevant legislation. It would be necessary to prove that refusal to take fingerprints ‘avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process’ to justify detention under the Returns Directive; but the purpose of the fingerprinting is mainly to apply the Dublin asylum rules, not to ‘prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process’, which is the legal basis for detention of irregular migrants under the Returns Directive. Furthermore, the rules on entry bans in that Directive make no reference to the issue of fingerprinting. As for asylum-seekers, the paper is correct to say that they can be detained in order to ‘verify their identity and/or nationality’ in the EU’s Reception Conditions Directive. However, for asylum-seekers who have been fingerprinted already by a Member State and then apply for asylum in a second Member State, the Commission fails to mention that the Dublin rules apply. They permit detention only where there is a ‘significant risk of absconding’, which does not automatically follow from a refusal to be fingerprinted.

Fifthly, the Commission proposed a Decision on relocation of asylum-seekers between Member States. This is the only one of this week’s proposals which would (if adopted) be legally binding. Like most Commission proposals, this needs a qualified majority of Member States to support it in the Council; unlike most EU law, the European Parliament need only be consulted. It seems from press reports that there will be a ‘blocking minority’ of Member States preventing its adoption, unless some of them change their position. It’s also possible that it will be agreed, but with major changes. But for now, let’s look at what the proposal would do if adopted.

The main thrust of the proposal is to derogate from the usual ‘Dublin’ rules as regards Italy and Greece, and distribute about 40% of the asylum-seekers which would normally be the responsibility of those Member States under the Dublin rules to other Member States. Due to opt-outs, the other Member States will not include Denmark or the UK, although it seems possible that Ireland will opt in. The proposal also will not apply to the non-Member States bound by the Dublin rules (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein). It would effectively be a regime within a regime, with only 25 or 26 of the 32 Dublin States applying it.

The relocated asylum-seekers will be split 60/40 between Italy and Greece, and will be allocated to other Member States on the basis of the criteria set out in the Annexes to the proposal. Relocation will be selective, applying only to those nationalities whose applications have over a 75% success rate in applications for international protection. It’s clear from the proposal that the Commission believes that only Syrians and Eritreans will qualify. The Member State of relocation will be responsible for considering the application, and asylum-seekers and refugees will not be able to move between Member States, in accordance with the normal Dublin rules. (After five years’ residence, refugees can move between Member States, according to the EU’s long-term residence Directive).

Besides the nationality criterion, who will be relocated? Asylum-seekers must be fingerprinted in order to qualify. The selection of asylum-seekers will be made by Italy and Greece, who must give ‘priority’ to those who are considered ‘vulnerable’ as defined by the EU reception conditions Directive. This refers to a long list of people:

‘such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation’

Implicitly, the other Member States must accept the asylum-seekers nominated by Italy and Greece, except that they can refuse relocation if it’s ‘likely that there are national security or public order concerns’.

What about the asylum-seekers themselves? There is no requirement that they consent to their relocation or have the power to request it. The proposed Decision only requires Italy and Greece to inform and notify the asylum-seekers about the relocation, and the Commission suggests that they could only appeal against the decision if there are major human rights problems in the country to which they would be relocated. So neither the relocation itself, nor the choice of Member State that a person will be relocated to, is voluntary. This is problematic, since forcing asylum-seekers to a country that they don’t want to be in is one of the key problems facing the Dublin system already.

Of course, it’s possible that like children left in an orphanage who weren’tpicked by new parents, there will be rather more asylum-seekers disappointed that they were not selected for relocation.  Do they have the right to a legal challenge? Arguably yes, to the extent that Italy and Greece select people who are not vulnerable for relocation, in light of their legal obligation to select vulnerable persons as a priority.  

Asylum-seekers do have the right to insist that their core family members (spouse or partner, unmarried minor children, or parents of minors) who are already on EU territory come with them to the relocated Member State. It’s not clear if Member States could count the transfer of family members towards their overall quota. If the asylum-seekers obtain refugee status in the State of relocation, they could also apply for family reunion under the EU’s family reunion Directive.

Similarly, it’s not clear if Member States can count towards their overall quota asylum-seekers who would normally be the responsibility of Italy and Greece, but who have already found their way on to another Member State’s territory. This might be termed relocation sur place. According to the rules in the Decision, this would in any event depend upon the willingness of Italy and Greece to designate such asylum-seekers for relocation. And as the Commission notes, persons who would already be the responsibility of Greece cannot be sent back there anyway due to the collapse of the asylum system in Greece, according to the CJEU ruling in NS (the position regarding Italy is more qualified: see the discussion of last year’s Tarakhel judgment). Of course, it is possible that the relocation of significant numbers of asylum-seekers away from Greece will contribute to solving the systemic problems with that country’s asylum system in the foreseeable future.

Overall, if the Council is willing to agree to the proposed Decision, it is likely to make a significant contribution to solving the problems with the asylum systems of some Member States, although only the more significant review of the Dublin rules promised for 2016 (or a profound improvement in the situation of countries of origin or transit) could provide a long-term solution. It is very striking that while this proposal effectively admits that the Dublin system is profoundly dysfunctional, the separate set of fingerprinting guidelines issued on the same day adopts a tone of head-banging savagery to try and get that system to work.

A final question arising is the impact of the proposed asylum measures on the UK. While the UK has an opt out, some suggest that all asylum-seekers who reach the EU could ultimately obtain EU citizenship and then move to the UK. However, the proposed Decision only relocates asylum-seekers who have already reached the EU, rather than increase the total number of asylum-seekers. Furthermore, a recent fact check suggests that only a modest number of non-EU citizens get Italian nationality each year, and that Italy only grants refugee status to a handful of people. Indeed, the only prominent Italian citizen with an African background currently in the UK is Mario Balotelli - but I don't want to intrude into the private grief of Liverpool football fans.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo: GlobalNation.Inquirer.net

Read More

Immigration detention in Europe: What are the facts? A new European Migration Network Study

 

Izabella Majcher, Associate Researcher at Global Detention Project and PhD candidate in International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies is Geneva.

 

In November, the European Migration Network (EMN) released its Focussed Study titled “The use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context of immigration policies.” It constitutes a synthesis report based on national reports from 26 countries, prepared by the EMN National Contact Points (NCPs). The countries covered by the report included 25 European Union (EU) member states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and one Schengen Associate country (Norway).

 

The aim of the study was to “identify similarities, differences and best practices with regard to the use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context of (Member) States’ immigration policies.” There are two main forms of immigration detention under EU law: pre-removal detention, which is regulated by the Returns Directive (2008/115/EC), and asylum detention, governed mainly by the Reception Conditions Directive (2003/9/EC) and its recently adopted recast(2013/33/EU). This blog post will briefly discuss the study by looking at its objectives (p. 8), namely to:

 

·         “Provide information on the scale of detention and alternatives to detention in each participating Member State and Norway by collecting statistics available on the number of third-country nationals (by category) that are subject to these measures;

 

·         Identify the categories of third-country nationals that can be subject to detention and/or provided an alternative to detention;

 

·         Compare and contrast the grounds for placing third-country nationals in detention and / or providing alternatives to detention outlined in national legal frameworks, as well as the assessment procedures and criteria used to reach decisions on detention in individual cases;

 

·         Identify and describe the different types of detention facilities and alternatives to detention available and used in (Member) States;

 

·         Collect any evidence of the way detention and alternatives to detention contribute to the effectiveness of return policies and international protection procedures.”

 

Scale of immigration detention

 

The statistical information constitutes one of the key strengths of the report. The figures on the number of migrants in detention are particularly relevant because the EU statistical office (Eurostat) does not provide them, to the contrary to, for instance, the number of non-citizens apprehended or deported.

 

For all but three countries (Cyprus, Greece, and Portugal) the report gives a total number of immigration detainees in 2013, which was 92,575. This figure is telling. However, to fully grasp the dimension of immigration detention in Europe, the figures for all the state parties to the relevant EU instruments over a few years are needed.

 

In 2013, the country which detained the highest number of non-citizens was France (including French overseas territories) (38,266), followed by Spain (9,020), Hungary (6,496), Bulgaria (6,303), and Belgium (6,285). On the other hand, the lowest number of immigration detainees was reported in Estonia (94), Slovakia (204), Latvia (221), and Lithuania (243). In terms of variations of the number of detained migrants, between 2009-2013 the highest increase was observed in Bulgaria (by more than 600 percent) and Hungary (by 226 percent). On the other hand, the greatest decrease was recorded in Slovakia (by 65 percent) and the Netherlands (by 53 percent).

 

Regrettably, few of the covered countries provided disaggregated statistics on the various categories of non-citizens among the total numbers of immigration detainees. Only nine countries provided data on the number of asylum seekers in detention and five countries on the number of pre-removal detainees. The recast of the Reception Conditions Directive contains a list of circumstances justifying detention of asylum seekers. Human rights advocates feared that this may trigger a more widespread use of detention during asylum procedures. The deadline for transposition of the recast is set for July 2015 and to date only a handful of countries have already transposed it. However in order to ascertain whether these concerns have materialized, the data on the number of asylum seekers in detention should be systematically collected already prior to the transposition of the recast.

 

Grounds for immigration detention

 

The study provides a useful overview of the most common grounds on which non-citizens can be detained under the domestic legislation of the examined countries. With respect to migrants in return proceedings, the report highlights 11 grounds laid down in legislation of the states bound by the Returns Directive (i.e. all countries covered by the study, except from the UK and Ireland). They include: the risk of absconding (22 countries), avoidance and hampering the removal process (20 countries), in order to effect the removal (14 countries), non-compliance with the alternatives to detention (12 countries), threat to national security and public order (12 countries), non-compliance with the voluntary return period (11 countries), the need to establish identity (11 countries), and reasonable grounds to believe that the person will commit a criminal offence (6 countries).

 

Amongst these grounds, only the first two are explicitly set out in the Returns Directive. The third one (to effect the removal) is also mentioned in the Directive, however as a general rationale for placing migrants in pre-removal detention. The fact that there are eight other grounds in the domestic legislation of the member states bound by the Directive, what did not entail any infringement proceedings by the European Commission, shows that, to the contrary to the stance by the Directive’s proponents, the Directive does not provide for an exhaustive list of grounds. Undoubtedly, an exhaustive enumeration of the circumstances justifying deprivation of liberty would prevent states from systematically ordering detention.

 

The report defines immigration detention as a non-punitive administrative measure (p. 8). Yet, two out of the above listed grounds appear to go beyond administrative migration-enforcement rationale. Arguably detention on account of threat to national security and public order and risk that the non-citizen will commit a criminal offence aims at deterrence or incapacitation. It is submitted here that if a migrant would indeed threaten public order, he should be subject to criminal rather than migration laws. Conflating the functions of these distinct branches of law creates confusion and feeds negative perception about migrants amongst the public.

 

In terms of detention of persons seeking international protection, the most common grounds include the need to establish the person’s identity (17 countries), the risk of absconding (16 countries), the threat to national security and public order (15 countries), suspicion of abuse of the asylum procedure (11 countries), the non-compliance with the alternatives to detention (9 countries), destroyed or forget identity documents (8 countries), and reason to believe that the persons will commit a criminal offence (7 countries).

 

Upon the transposition of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, several states would need to adapt their domestic provisions containing circumstances justifying detention to comply with the Directive, since it sets out an exhaustive list of grounds. These grounds include: determination of the identity and nationality, determination of the elements of the asylum application that could not be obtained in the absence of detention (particularly if there is a risk of absconding), when border, return, or Dublin procedures are ongoing, and for the protection of national security and public order.

 

Review of detention

 

The report’s findings under this heading are meaningful and show how Member States participating in the Returns Directive took advantage of quite low requirements of the Directive in terms of judicial control of detention. In fact, the lack of mandatory and ex officio judicial supervision of detention appears to be one of the weaknesses of the Directive. Under the Directive, detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. As the report shows, in most of the countries authorities which decide to arrest a migrant also carry out an initial assessment of whether grounds for detention apply. Usually these are non-judicial bodies, such as police (11 countries), migration and asylum authorities (10 countries), Interior Ministries (5 countries), and border guards (5 countries). Only in nine countries is the decision to detain ultimately taken by a court. Thus, the vast majority of the countries relied on the possibility under the Directive to task administrative bodies to order detention. In such cases, the Directive obligates states to either provide for a speedy judicial review of detention or grant the detainee the right to apply for such a review. Obviously, the latter option is less protective and often migrants would need legal assistance to be able to exercise that right. Yet, this option has been privileged by states. The data put together in this section of the report demonstrate that in 16 of the examined states, there is no automatic periodic judicial review of detention. Administrative courts are only involved following application by the detainee.

 

Places of detention

 

Both the Returns Directive and the recast Reception Conditions Directive prioritize the use of specialized detention facilities for confining immigration detainees. In July 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the relevant provision laid down in the Returns Directive and ruledthat the absence of specialized facilities in one part of the Member State’s territory does not justify using prisons, if specialized facilities are available in other part of its territory.

 

This section of the report is confusing. The study uses the term “detention facility” when referring to specialized facilities. It provides that the use of “detention facilities” is a “consolidated practices across all (Member) States, with the exception of Ireland where third-country national are detained in prisons” (p. 28). This statement implicitly says that other countries use specialized detention facilities, but that is far from the reality. In fact, Germany, for instance, uses prisons, Greecepolice stations, while Austria “police detention centres,” which are a peculiar kind of facility, confining, besides immigrations detainees, also administrative detainees and criminal suspects. The report in fact classifies immigration detention sections of German prisons and Austrian “police detention centres” as specialized facilities. It also says that migrants can be detained in police and border stations in Greece for a short time. This statement seems to ignore a systematic practice by Greek authorities, confirmed by several monitoring bodies, of detaining migrants in such premises for the maximum length of detention.

 

It needs to be highlighted that the report’s findings are based on the national reports written by EMN National Contact Points (NCPs). Out of 26 NCPs which drafted the national reports, 18 are part of or work under the authority of the Ministry of Interior, three are national offices of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), while only three include academic or research institutions. The involvement of the Ministries of Interior in the drafting of at least 70 percent of the reports calls for reading with caution the positive findings flowing from these reports. In particular, in order to have a more nuanced picture of the use of immigration detention in Europe, one should gather the information from academia and relevant NGOs.

 

Alternatives to detention

 

The Returns Directive and the recast Reception Conditions Directive require states to give priority to “less coercive measures.” The study enumerates the most common non-custodial alternatives to detention, including reporting obligations (23 countries), residence restrictions (18 countries), surrender of documents (15 countries), and the release on bail (13 countries). It does not however clarify whether these alternatives to detention are solely provided for in domestic legislation of examined countries, or are also used in practice. In fact, with respect to the use of alternatives to detention the difference between theory and practice tends to be considerable. It its March 2014 Communication on Return Policy, the European Commission assessed both the legal and practical application of the alternatives to detention in 31 countries. In total, the examined countries reported 87 cases of a legal basis in their domestic legislation for an alternative to detention, comprised in the four categories enumerated in the EMN report. When looking at the practical application, out of these 87 reported domestic legal provisions on alternatives, only 32 percent has been used in practice, in 23 percent of cases there was no practical application, while for the remaining 45 percent there was no information about their use in practice.

 

Impact of detention

 

The final, but one of the key objectives of the report was to identify whether the use of detention or alternatives to detention contribute to the effectiveness of return polices and international protection procedures. The study acknowledges that the impact of detention and alternatives to detention on the effectiveness of migration procedures was difficult to measure because very little data was available to evaluate this question. It makes however a few points in this respect. It notes that the risk of absconding could be greater in case of alternatives to detention, since such a risk does not exist when person is put in detention. On the other hand, alternatives are less costly than detention. Most importantly, the report finds that in overall the impact of both detention and alternatives to detention on the ability of states to effect a return appears to be insignificant, to the contrary to other factors, like having travel documents for the person to be deported.

 

These findings invite us to make some concluding comments. Where a risk of absconding during return procedures can be minimalized by reliance on less costly alternatives to detention, but states nevertheless opt for detention, this may show that detention offers some (hidden) advantages for states. The same holds true in cases of systematic detention, for prolonged periods, of persons who cannot be deported. Arguably, despite being formally an administrative and non-punitive measure, immigration detention is sometimes used by states as a deterrent, which is a typical function of criminal incarceration. Placing migrant in detention may aim at compelling him to collaborate with authorities in view of obtaining travel documents or agreeing to return voluntarily. The use of detention for such criminal-like purposes appears to be beneficial for States, while at the same time makes non-citizens more vulnerable to abuses.

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

 

Photo: Amygdaleza detention centre in Greece, credit: www.metamute.org

Read More

Tarakhel v Switzerland: Another nail in the coffin of the Dublin system?

 

Steve Peers

Introduction

Despite the EU’s purported adherence to high standards of human rights protection, the EU’s Dublin system, which allocates responsibility for each asylum-seeker’s application to a single Member State, has repeatedly run foul of human rights standards. Yesterday’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’, or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in Tarakhel v Switzerland, and the recent judgment of the same court in Sharifi v Italy and Greece, have further confirmed the problems in making this system compatible with ECHR obligations.

In fact, the Tarakheljudgment goes further than the prior judgments, which had merely exposed the lack of sufficient human rights protection in the EU legislation, as applied by Member States. Rather, it is now clear that the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in interpreting the Dublin rules is also incompatible with the ECHR.

Background

The Dublin rules initially appeared as part of the Schengen Convention, which bound only certain Member States. They were then set out in the form of the Dublin Convention, signed in 1990. This Convention was replaced by an EC Regulation (known as the ‘Dublin II Regulation’) from 2003. That Regulation was in turn replaced by the Dublin III Regulation, adopted in 2013, which applies to all applications made after 1 January 2014. Furthermore, the Dublin rules have been extended to the non-EU countries associated with the Schengen system, by means of treaties with Norway and Iceland on the one hand, and Switzerland and Liechtensteinon the other.

The previous leading cases on the compatibility of the Dublin regime with human rights were (for the Strasbourg court) the 2011 judgment in MSS v Belgium and Greece, and (for the CJEU) the judgment in NS, delivered later that same year. In MSS, the ECtHR ruled that Greece had violated Article 3 ECHR (the ban on torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) in three ways: its treatment of the Afghan asylum-seeker in question in detention; its failure to secure adequate living conditions for him after release from detention; and its highly deficient asylum procedure. The evidence of these violations was found in numerous reports by NGOs and international bodies. The Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because it had returned the same asylum-seeker to Greece (in accordance with the Dublin rules), even though it must have known of the situation there. For good measure, the Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 13 ECHR (the right to an effective remedy), since Belgium did not provide for sufficient reviews of the merits in cases such as this one.

Subsequently, the CJEU ruled in NS that asylum-seekers could not be returned to Greece, pursuant to the Dublin rules, because of systematic deficiencies in the asylum system in that country. Removals in such cases would constitute a breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the equivalent of Article 3 ECHR). However, the Court distinguished such major breaches of fundamental rights from minor violations of EU or international rules relating to refugees, which would not require Member States to refrain from applying the Dublin rules.

Before the ECtHR could rule in Tarakhel, the CJEU clarified its position in its judgment in Abdullahi, delivered late in 2013. The Court started out by emphasising the presumption that all EU Member States protected human rights, noting that there was now second-phase legislation establishing the Common European Asylum System. It then characterised the Dublin rules as essentially regulating the relationship between Member States, referring in particular to the optional ‘sovereignty’ and ‘humanitarian’ clauses in the Dublin II Regulation, as well as the possibility of conciliation or separate arrangements between Member States. It followed that when two Member States agreed which of them was the Member State of first authorised entry (triggering responsibility under the Dublin rules), an asylum-seeker could ‘only’ challenge that decision by ‘pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum’ in the Member State which was deemed responsible for the asylum application.

Finally, the recent Sharifijudgment pf the Strasbourg Court established that Italy’s interception of asylum-seekers from Greece in the Adriatic, and their forced return to Greece, violated Article 3 ECHR as well as the ban on collective expulsions in the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR. In doing so, it confirmed a key corollary of the MSS ruling: Member States breach the ECHR if they stop asylum-seekers fleeing an unsafe country directly from crossing their borders. Although the rules on freedom to travel for third-country nationals in the Schengen Convention do not give asylum-seekers the right to move between Schengen States (unless, improbably, they have a visa or residence permit, or the visa requirement is waived for their country of origin), the ECHR nevertheless gives asylum-seekers the freedom to travel between Schengen countries (or any States) in such circumstances. Also, the right to move to another country extends beyond the three-month time limit on intra-Schengen travel, since asylum-seekers can in principle stay until their claim is finally rejected.

The Tarakhel judgment

Yesterday’s judgment concerned a family of eight Afghans, who entered the EU by crossing the Italian border first. This made Italy responsible for their applications under the Dublin rules. However, the family soon left the asylum-seekers’ reception centre which they were assigned to in Italy, on the grounds that conditions there were inadequate for families. They moved to Austria, which triggered the Dublin rules, asking Italy to take charge of them. Italy agreed, but before their transfer to Italy could be carried out, they moved on to Switzerland. That country in turn asked Italy to take charge of the family; Italy tacitly accepted.

However, they challenged their removal to Italy on the grounds that their treatment in that country, if they were removed there, would violate Article 3 ECHR. They lost their case in the Swiss courts, so asked the ECtHR to rule that their removal to Italy would constitute a breach of Article 3, as well as Article 8 ECHR (the right to family life). They also alleged a breach of Article 13.

The ECtHR rejected the Article 13 claim on the merits, since the Swiss courts had examined the merits of their legal arguments and they were allowed to stay on Swiss territory in the meantime. It held that it was not necessary to examine the Article 8 argument. Most importantly, by a majority of 14-3, it found that there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Yet there are important differences between the MSS judgment and the Tarakhel judgment. Yesterday’s judgment does not state that Italy’s asylum system has effectively collapsed, as was the case in Greece. In particular, there were no allegations in Tarakhelrelating to flaws in Italy’s asylum procedures, or as regards detention. The argument instead was solely about living conditions in Italian detention centres.

The ECtHR began by reiterating its case law from MSS about reception conditions for asylum-seekers. While Article 3 ECHR did not guarantee a home or financial assistance, in cases involving EU Member States the Court took account of their specific obligations in that respect under the EU’s reception conditions Directive. Also asylum-seekers were an ‘underprivileged and vulnerable group’, and it was possible that extreme poverty could raise issues under Article 3. The Court also referred to other prior case law on the need to ensure that child asylum-seekers, who were in a position of ‘extreme vulnerability’, enjoyed ‘protection and humanitarian assistance’.

Next, the Court reiterated the usual rule that Article 3 prevents removal if ‘substantial grounds have been shown for believing’ that there is a ‘real risk’ of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the state of destination. The same rule could be used to rebut the assumption that countries applying the Dublin system were all safe. In this context, the ECtHR referred to the CJEU’s ‘systemic deficiencies’ test set out in the judgment in NS, but made no reference to the ruling in Abdullahi that this was the ‘only’ ground for challenging the application of the Dublin rules. However, the ECtHR also ‘notes’ the recent EM judgmentof the UK Supreme Court, which expressly stated that ‘systemic deficiencies’ were not the only ground for such challenges. Overall, the Court stated that these tests had to be applied by examining ‘the applicant’s individual situation in light of the overall situation prevailing’ in the state of destination.

Applying these rules to this case, the applicants had made three complaints about the situation of the Italian reception system. The first complaint, about the slowness of identification procedures, was dismissed out of hand, since the applicants had in fact been identified quickly. As for the second complaint, the Court accepted the evidence that there were not enough places for all asylum applicants. Thirdly, as for the reception conditions within the available facilities, a number of problems had been identified by the UNHCR and the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner.

Taken as a whole, then, the Court ruled that the ‘current situation in Italy can in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the MSS judgment’, where only a small fraction of asylum-seekers could be accommodated and ‘the conditions of the most extreme poverty…existed on a large scale’. So there could not be ‘a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country’. Having said that, the Court accepted that there was some risk that asylum-seekers might not get accommodation, or that the accommodation would be inadequate.

As for the individual position of the applicants, that was not comparable to the facts of the MSScase either.  The family in this case were taken care of immediately by the Italian government, rather than detained and then left to fend for themselves. But again, having said that, the Court was concerned that, in light of the vulnerability of asylum-seekers, and children in particular, there was no guarantee of (adequate) accommodation for families seeking asylum in Italy. So Switzerland could not send the family to Italy unless they obtained sufficient assurances on this point. This alone constituted a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Interestingly, the majority judgment makes no reference to the alternative possibility of asylum-seekers obtaining private family housing at the expense of the State, which the CJEU developed in its recent Saciri judgment on the reception conditions Directive.

Comments

With great respect, there are many flaws with the CJEU’s judgment in Abdullahi. That judgment confuses Regulations (directly applicable in national legal systems) with Conventions (essentially governing relations between States). It places undue reliance on provisions of the Dublin II Regulation which were never applied in practice (conciliation) or were irrelevant to the case at hand (separate arrangements between Member States). It ignores the CJEU’s own case law on the ability to challenge Member States’ application of the Dublin II rules as regards unaccompanied minors (MA), humanitarian situations (K) or withdrawn applications (Kastrati). Its scope is unclear: does it only apply when Member States agree that the criterion regarding irregular entry is applicable, or in other cases as well? In any event, the judgment needs to be rethought in light of the Dublin III Regulation, which considerably expanded the procedural rights of asylum-seekers in the Dublin context. Why do that, if they can only challenge their transfer if there is a complete breakdown in the asylum system of the State responsible for their application?

But the most fundamental flaw in the Abdullahi judgment is exactly that: the CJEU’s statement that at least in some cases, the determination of the responsible Member State can ‘only’ be challenged if there are ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of that State. Is that statement still correct after Tarakhel?

Certainly the statement is wrong if the CJEU meant (as it appeared to say) that both the asylum procedure and the reception conditions systems have to have failed in the responsible Member State, before a transfer to that State can be challenged. In Tarakhel, there is no issue raised regarding the asylum procedure in Italy. More generally, the Italian reception system is not in complete breakdown: the Tarakhel family faces neither extreme poverty nor vile detention conditions, but merely some risk that accommodation will either not be available or that it will be somewhat unpleasant. Accordingly, the Swiss obligations are nuanced: there is no ban on transfers, merely a procedural obligation to make arrangements with the Italian authorities.

It isn’t clear whether Tarakhelabandons the CJEU’s assumption that only ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of a responsible State can justify a challenge to a Dublin transfer, or whether the judgment merely modifies the notion of ‘systemic deficiencies’ considerably, lowering the threshold for its application. On the first hypothesis, ‘systemic deficiencies’ are just one example of a situation that could lead to rebuttal of the assumption that another Dublin State is safe. Uncertainty about adequate reception conditions for families is another. But surely this cannot be an exhaustive list.

On the second hypothesis, a ‘systemic deficiency’ would not exist only where an asylum system had entirely collapsed, but where some particular aspect of the system was malfunctioning regularly to some extent. By analogy, a car needs to be fixed not only when the brakes entirely fail to work, but also when the windshield wipers occasionally malfunction. The risk is far greater in the first case, but the second case shouldn’t be ignored either. Again, the problems in Tarakhel cannot be the only example of a flaw in the asylum system of a responsible Member State that needs to be fixed before asylum-seekers can be transferred there.

There isn’t much difference between these two possible interpretations of Tarakhel. Although the first interpretation is in principle more open-ended than the second one, it shouldn’t take too much imagination to argue that any particular problem an asylum-seeker might face in the responsible Member State is ‘systematic’ in this very broad sense. The second interpretation does give the CJEU more leeway to back down from its head-banging judgment in Abdullahi, and explain that this was also what it had meant by ‘systemic deficiencies’ all along.

Of course, given the strong insistence on the efficiency of the Dublin system in the Abdullahijudgment, this is obviously not what the Court had meant at the time. Yet the clear message from the Tarakhel case is that there is not a simple binary distinction between cases when all Dublin transfers should stop, on the one hand, and cases when all Dublin transfers should go ahead at full speed, on the other. Instead, like a traffic light, yesterday’s judgment creates an intermediate category of cases in which national administrations must proceed with caution. This will undoubtedly make the Dublin system more costly and complex to administer, but that is often the only way to ensure that human rights are protected effectively.  

Barnard & Peers:  chapter 9, chapter 26

Read More

Unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers: a step in the right direction?

Steve Peers

The EU’s Dublin system on the allocation of responsibility for asylum-seekers, which sets out rules determining which single Member State has responsibility for considering an asylum-seeker’s application, has long been decried as unworkable and an infringement of human rights. These broader arguments will be addressed in a future post on this blog, but for the moment it’s a good time to have a look at yesterday’s proposal from the Commission to ameliorate the Dublin system’s effects a little.

The proposal only covers applications by unaccompanied minors, who make up a small proportion of the total number of asylum-seekers. Nevertheless, they constitute a particularly vulnerable group. Currently, the Dublin III Regulation states that the Member State responsible for an unaccompanied minor asylum-seeker is the Member State where a family member or sibling of the minor is legally present, if that is in the best interests of the child. A ‘family member’ is defined as a spouse, parent or guardian (if the minor is unmarried), or child of the asylum-seeker, if the family already existed in the country of origin. If the minor is married but his or her spouse is not in the EU, then the Member State where his or parents are legally present is responsible.

If there are no such persons on the territory of a Member State, then the Member State where a ‘relative’ of the unaccompanied minor is legally present is responsible, if that relative can take care of him or her.  A ‘relative’ is defined as an aunt, uncle or grandparent.

If there are family members, siblings or relatives in multiple Member States, then the responsible Member State is decided on the basis of the best interests of the child.

Finally, if no such persons can be found, the ‘default’ rule is that the Member State responsible is the State where the unaccompanied minor has applied for asylum, if that is in his or her best interests. But the legislation does not expressly address how this rule applies if the minor applies for asylum in more than one Member State.

When the Dublin III Regulation was negotiated in 2012, these provisions were hotly disputed between the European Parliament and the Council. The two institutions finally agreed to leave the default rule untouched, since there was a pending case on the interpretation of that rule before the CJEU. However, they adopted a joint declaration calling on the Commission to consider making a proposal to amend the legislation as regards that issue once the Court had delivered its ruling.

The Court gave its ruling in that case (MA) in June 2013, and the Commission has now presented its proposal. According to the Court, where an unaccompanied minor has already made an application for asylum in one Member State, and then proceeds to make an application in another one, the default rule should be interpreted to mean that the Member State where the most recent application was made is responsible for the application.

In the Court’s view, this interpretation was necessary first of all for literal reasons, as the legislation does not refer to the first Member State where the application was made. Secondly, unaccompanied minors were vulnerable persons, so the procedure to apply the Dublin rules should be as short as possible. Finally, this interpretation was most consistent with the ‘best interest of the child’, as required by Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Yesterday’s proposal would first of all entrench the Court’s interpretation as an express rule in the Dublin Regulation, covering all cases where the asylum-seeker had applied in multiple Member States. This is the interpretation that the EP favoured, and had tried to fight for as an express rule back in 2012.

It would also set out a new rule which would apply when the unaccompanied minor has made an asylum application in one Member State, and is present in a second Member State, but has notmade an application in the second Member State.  In that case, the second Member State should ‘inform’ the child of the possibility of applying for asylum there, and give him or her an ‘effective opportunity’ to apply.

If the minor takes up the opportunity to apply for asylum in the second Member State, that Member State becomes responsible for the application. If he or she does not apply, then the Member State where he or she has most recently applied is responsible.

The new proposal also specifies that the Member States concerned shall cooperate to establish what the best interests of the child are. Finally, it sets out an express rule on Member States informing each other of their decisions; the CJEU had already established such an obligation in the MA judgment.

Comments

In principle this proposal is very welcome, given that it exempts unaccompanied minors from the full rigour of the Dublin rules. While this might reduce the pressure to reform those rules, there is little prospect of a fundamental change in those rules (at least at the EU legislature's behest; the courts may be a different matter). So at least one category of vulnerable persons can escape from them. 

More particularly, the proposal both confirms the ‘applicant’s choice’ rule for unaccompanied minors without family members first established by last year’s judgment, and also extends that rule to more situations. However, there are certain limits on the proposal, and flaws which could be improved.

First of all, it should be noted that the proposal does not cover the position of those whose application for asylum has already been rejected in another Member State. But the Court of Justice referred to that issue in its MA judgment, noting that in such cases the second Member State has the option to treat the application as inadmissible in accordance with the EU’s asylum procedures rules. Presumably that rule would continue to apply here.

On this point, however, in principle there should not be many fast-track refusals of applications by unaccompanied minors, given the convoluted exceptions from some of the fast-track rules set out in the second-phase Directive on asylum procedures.

Secondly, the new amendment would not clarify what is meant by the obligation to ‘inform’ the child about applying for asylum and give him or her an ‘effective opportunity’ to apply for asylum. Although there is a rule in the Regulation already spelling out an obligation to inform asylum-seekers about Dublin rules, it only applies once the person concerned has applied for asylum. So it doesn’t cover the position of those who haven’t applied yet. There should be express rules on this issue, in order to ensure that the child is made fully aware of the choice of making a fresh application.

As for the effective opportunity to apply for asylum, there is a (rather vague) rule on this issue in the second-phase Directive on asylum procedures. But it isn’t clear if the proposed new rules in the Dublin Regulation would confer less, more or the same degree of protection than the rules in the Directive.

Thirdly, the prospect of Member States deciding between themselves on what is in the best interests of the child is problematic. Surely, in accordance with the EU Charter, the child has a right to express a view on this issue, especially since EU asylum law guarantees him or her the right to a representative for this very purpose? So the legislation should guarantee that any decision which Member States take which is purportedly in the best interests of the child should be open to challenge, following a prior right to a hearing and the disclosure of relevant information on this subject.

Next, the proposal may mean that more Member States in practice embark on the controversial practice of trying to determine the age of teenagers who claim to be 'minors' (the EU legislation defines this as being under 18). The asylum procedures Directive has rules on this issue, but there are no rules on what happens if the person turns 18 during the procedure.  

Finally, it must be noted that the rules will only be relevant for those minors who have the effective possibility of moving between Member States. They will need some knowledge of which Member States they might wish to apply to, and how to get there, as well as the money to arrange for their travel. Furthermore, they will obviously not be able to move to another Member State in order to apply there if they are in detention. On this point, it should be noted that the revised reception conditions Directive provides that unaccompanied minors can only be detained in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Given the freedom of unaccompanied minors to make applications in another Member State, it cannot be argued that this possibility justifies their detention. In fact, the grounds for detention in the reception conditions Directive do not provide for such a case. Similarly, while the Dublin rules do allow detention if there is a ‘significant risk of absconding’, it is difficult to see how that ground for detention can apply to unaccompanied minors in light of these rules.  

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 26 

Read More

The CJEU secures asylum seekers' right to family housing

Steve Peers

What obligations do Member States have to ensure that asylum-seeking families are housed adequately? The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has today usefully clarified the minimum standards which Member States must observe on this issue, in its judgment in Saciri. This judgment is a welcome confirmation that whatever the practical difficulties facing Member States in managing their reception for asylum-seekers, families cannot simply be left homeless or forced to live in grossly inadequate conditions by means of the refusal of support for financial assistance to obtain housing.

Judgment

The case concerns a family of asylum-seekers (two parents and three children) who needed accommodation in Belgium while their asylum application was being considered. The Belgian agency responsible for reception of asylum-seekers replied that it could not provide reception, and referred them to the social assistance agency. Since the Saciri family could not pay the rent being charged for private properties, they asked the social assistance agency for financial support.

But there was a 'Catch-22': the agency refused to give them support, since the family was not living in accommodation provided for by the reception agency - even though the reception agency had told them that it could not help them. A lower court in Belgium ruled that the reception agency had to pay them financial support, and that agency appealed to the referring court, which asked the CJEU questions about the EU's first-phase reception conditions Directive.

First of all, the CJEU pointed out that the Directive allows for support for asylum-seekers either in kind (ie providing housing directly) or by providing financial allowances. Then it confirmed its prior case law (Cimade and GISTI) to the effect that benefits must be provided as soon as the asylum application is made, in particular in light of the right to human dignity set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Next, as for the amount of the financial allowances, regardless of how the aid is provided, the Directive states that it must ensure a dignified standard of living for applicants' health, as well as subsistence. Member States must also, according to the Directive, take account of those with special needs (including minors), entailing a requirement to preserve family unity as well as the best interests of the child. The CJEU confirmed that these principles meant that applicants must be able to obtain housing on the private market if necessary, although this did not mean that asylum-seekers could make their own choice of housing.

The CJEU then ruled that, although the specific rules in the Directive relating to housing only apply where the housing is provided in kind by Member States, it still followed that any allowances provided to assist with housing had to ensure the unity of the family.

Finally, the Court ruled that where accommodation facilities are overloaded, it was open to Member States to refer asylum-seekers to the authorities responsible for public assistance, provided that the latter authorities ensure that the minimum standards in the Directive are met.

The Court concluded by noting that 'saturation of the reception networks [is not] a justification for any derogation from meeting' the standards in the Directive.

Comments

The CJEU's judgment neatly addresses the 'Catch-22' created by national law, which to some extent reflects the structure of the Directive. On the one hand, the Directive lays out general rules on reception support, but then on the other hand, it only lays out detailed rules as regards housing where the State provides such housing in kind. What if the State does not, or cannot, provide for housing in kind?

The Court's answer to this question takes account of the definition of 'material reception conditions' in the Directive, which expressly includes 'housing'. So it logically follows that such material support must include assistance to obtain housing, where no housing is provided for in kind.

Moreover, it is expressly clear from the Court's judgment that a family of asylum-seekers is entitled to support to obtain family housing on the private market, although the Court does recognise that the asylum-seekers do not have a fully free choice of where they may be housed. This necessarily means that, if there is no publicly-provided accommodation available, the authorities must ensure that a family of asylum-seekers has enough support to afford to rent a property at market rates, which is big enough to house their family in dignity. But the house need not be palatial. Probably this means that a family of five cannot demand enough financial support to rent a four-bedroom house; but neither can they all be expected to sleep on the same sofa.

The Court's answer to these questions was not affected by the overloading of the Member State's reception system. This had practical consequences, in that asylum-seekers can be referred to the social assistance agency instead of the reception agency, and be provided with a financial allowance instead of housing in kind. But the basic obligation to provide enough assistance to ensure a minimum dignified level of accommodation, including family unity, cannot be derogated from.

Finally, it should be noted that the judgment takes a stronger approach to family unity than the wording of the Directive, which states only that family unity shall be ensured 'as far as possible', and only where Member States provide for accommodation in kind. The Court's judgment means instead that families of asylum-seekers must be able to live together in all cases, if necessary in private accommodation, even if this means some additional cost or administrative inconvenience for Member States. This can only be welcomed, as it is an essential step to ensure the protection of the family life of some of the most vulnerable people in the European Union.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Read More