10 jaar Dublin
The Dublin Regulation: Ten years on, no protection in sight
An African refugee drinks a cup of coffee in a
Budapest homeless shelter while pondering his
future.
©
UNHCR/B.Szandelszky
Brussels, 18 February 2013 -- Today is the
10-year anniversary of the
Dublin Regulation, an EU law that determines
EU member state responsibility for assessing
asylum applications. For EU and national
government policymakers, it may seem appropriate
to commemorate the birthday of an EU law that
that has become, in their eyes, the cornerstone
of the
Common
European Asylum System.
But the Dublin Regulation has also drawn the ire
of NGO and refugees alike. Countless reports
have shown that ‘the Dublin system’, which
mostly transfers asylum seekers to the first EU
country they arrived to, is at odds with refugee
protection.
The
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)
and
Forum RƩfugiƩs are marking the Dublin
Regulation’s birthday by releasing their own
report entitled, Lives
on Hold. It reveals the harsh
consequences asylum seekers face as a
consequence of the Dublin system: families are
separated, people are left destitute or
detained, and many cannot even access an asylum
procedure.
Perhaps we are now reaching a tipping point in
which it is obvious that the Dublin system does
not work for asylum seekers; that to continue it
defies both good sense and logic. It now seems
so clear that the Dublin system is not a
cornerstone of protection, but rather a
cornerstone of confusion and adversity for most
of these asylum seekers who experience it.
Worthy goal, unworthy implementation. The
original intention of the Dublin system, to
prevent asylum seekers in orbit, was and remains
a worthy aspiration. There ought to be a system
that ensures that asylum seekers are not ignored
by governments.
But this worthy ideal went wrong in the
implementation. It has made life extremely
difficult for asylum seekers. In some instances
the Dublin system has seriously violated their
fundamental rights. Three examples show this.
First, despite the worthy goal, asylum seekers
are still ‘in orbit’. Against all opposition
they are trying to get to the EU member state
they want to be in, or they are trying to escape
from a member state where they do not feel
protected. Our current research project on the
Dublin Regulation is showing that, on average,
people are making three to four journeys between
EU countries. It is as if the more people are
forced to be in a particular member state, the
more likely they will try to go elsewhere.
Second, because of the Dublin system asylum
seekers are not where they need to be. Many
asylum seekers are forcibly separated from their
families because of the Dublin Regulation, which
is a gross violation of their fundamental
rights.
To asylum seekers, ‘protection’ is not only a
legal entitlement connected to the 1951 Refugee
Convention. It is also about stability in
the form of being with family and having access
to appropriate housing and basic services.
Asylum seekers go wherever they think they will
feel the safest: where they know the language,
or where they can find people of their
nationality. Safety is where their family is,
where they can live under a roof and be
self-sufficient. Accessing this kind of safety
is their central aspiration.
Third, most asylum seekers do not know about the
one aspect of the Dublin Regulation that could
improve their situation. These are articles 3
and 15 in the current regulation, known as the
‘humanitarian’ and ‘sovereignty’ clauses,
respectively. Member states rarely use these
clauses, even if families become separated as a
result.
Even worse, member states are not providing
information about these clauses to asylum
seekers. To be ignorant of such an important
piece of the regulation means that asylum
seekers are fundamentally unable to fully
participate in the Dublin process because they
lack knowledge about aspects of the law that can
guarantee and safeguard their fundamental
rights. For member states, not informing asylum
seekers of these clauses means that they cannot
fully apprise themselves of the facts and
circumstances of a person’s case that would
warrant their usage.
Are there changes in sight? The ECRE/Forum
RƩfugiƩs report notes that asylum seekers in the
Dublin system are “frequently treated as a
secondary category of people subject to fewer
entitlements.” Sadly, this is a very true
statement.
For years, Dublin asylum seekers have told JRS
Europe that they feel like ‘banana crates’. They
are tossed between EU countries with little to
no care for their personal aspirations. They
have become objectified.
The most alarming aspect of the Dublin system is
that the confusion and adversity experienced by
asylum seekers is caused for no discernible
reason. The EU asylum system experiences no
improvement. In any other sector, such a poorly
performing policy would be scrapped.
However this year the European Parliament and
Council of the EU will adopt a new Dublin
Regulation. It contains many provisions that
might reduce the adversities faced by asylum
seekers. There will be a new ‘right to
information’, obliging member states to more
thoroughly inform asylum seekers and to give
them leaflets. Asylum seekers will have better
access to legal remedies, including
opportunities to suspend a transfer if an asylum
seeker appeals against it. Though JRS still
worries that member states will continue
detaining asylum seekers, at least the new
regulation will contain clearer legal grounds
for the use of detention. Importantly, member
states will only be able to detain unless ‘other
less coercive measures’ do not work. This means
that detention cannot be a knee-jerk response to
Dublin asylum seekers.
Notwithstanding these important changes, unless
member states improve their asylum systems and
the Dublin system better addresses people’s
motivations and aspirations, then we will not
have achieved a better protection system for
those who need it.
-- Philip Amaral,
Advocacy
and Communications Coordinator,
JRS Europe
Bron: http://www.jrseurope.org/news_releases/TheDublinRegulationTenYearsOnNoProtectionInSight_NEWS18022013.htm
Law blog
Tweet
Reacties