ip · GR10400 · 2004-03-31 00:00:00 — Interpellation 2003/04:400 av () till statsrådet om EU:s asylprocedurdirektiv samt skyddsgrundsdirektivet EU har sökt enas om två direktiv rörande unionens hantering av asylsökande, dels direktivet om "miniminormer för medlemsstaternas förfaranden för att bevilja eller återkalla flyktingstatus" (känt som asylprocedurdirektivet) och dels direktivet om "miniminormer för när tredjelandsmedborgare och statslösa personer ska betraktas som flyktingar eller som personer som av andra skäl behöver internationellt skydd samt om dessa personers rättsliga ställning" (skyddsgrundsdirektivet). Båda direktiven, men främst asylprocedurdirektivet, har blivit hårt kritiserade av olika aktörer på asylområdet. kritiserade direktiven och ifrågasatte dess förenlighet med internationell rätt. Grundsatserna i kritiken var en rädsla för att de föreslagna direktiven skulle skapa en erosion i hela det globala asylsystemet och att framtida flyktingars liv sattes i fara. den 30mars ställdes frågan till statsrådet om hon gjorde bedömningen att UNHCR:s kritik kvarstod inför detta möte. Svaret var undvikande och det är troligt att nämnden fick intrycket av att statsrådets bedömning var att man i huvudsak rättat till de brister UNHCR pekat på. Det kom dock att visa sig att så inte var fallet. I ett uttalande inför ministerrådet den 30mars upprepade och förstärkte FN:s flyktingkommissarie sin kritik (uttalandet hämtat från UNHCR:s hemsida på Internet bifogas). Dessutom tillskrev tio organisationer med bred erfarenhet på området, däribland , , Human Rights Watch, Kyrkornas , rättigheter, och , rådet och kommissionen med önskan om att förkasta asylprocedurdirektivet (också detta brev bifogas, hämtat från hemsida). Organisationerna skriver bland annat att man med bestörtning åser att huvuddelarna i asylprocedurdirektivet handlar om att utestänga asylsökande från möjligheten att över huvud taget få en asylprocedur. Frivilligorganisationerna pekar också på det faktum att miniminormer ofta inte blir golv för flyktingpolitiken, utan snarare tak där ingen har en humanare flyktingpolitik men några kryper under den gemensamma överenskommelsen. Enligt rapporteringen på hemsida kom rådet den 30mars aldrig att fatta beslut om de berörda direktiven. Det innebär att det fortfarande finns möjlighet, och anledning, för och regeringen att i enlighet med den kritik som framförts från UNHCR och människorättsorganisationerna sätta stopp för direktiven. Jag vill därför fråga statsrådet följande: På vilket sätt avser statsrådet att agera för att UNHCR:s kritik leder till förändringar vad gäller asylprocedurdirektivet? På vilket sätt avser statsrådet att verka för att asylprocedurdirektivet överensstämmer med internationell rätt (så som den uttolkas av UNHCR)? På vilket sätt avser statsrådet att agera för att människorättsorganisationernas kritik leder till förändringar vad gäller asylprocedurdirektivet? På vilket sätt avser statsrådet att agera för att UNHCR:s kritik leder till förändringar vad gäller skyddsgrundsdirektivet? På vilket sätt avser statsrådet att säkerställa att de diskuterade direktiven inte leder till en sänkt ambitionsnivå i det globala asylsystemet? På vilket sätt avser statsrådet att säkerställa att miniminormerna i dessa direktiv inte blir den gällande flyktingpolitiken i EU, utan enskilda länder vidare värnar asylrätten genom en mer human asylprövning? Hur avser statsrådet att garantera att direktiven inte i förlängningen leder till en mer restriktiv och mindre human svensk flyktingpolitik och asylprövning? Bilaga 1: UNHCR:s uttalande Lubbers calls for EU asylum laws not to contravene international law UN High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers on Monday expressed concerns about two key pieces of draft European Union legislation, warning that several provisions in the current drafts would fall short of accepted international legal standards. Lubbers said they could lead to an erosion of the global asylum system, jeopardizing the lives of future refugees. The two draft directives @ the last in a series of five major pieces of legislation intended to harmonize EU asylum law @ will be discussed by EU and Home Affairs Ministers in on Tuesday. They are supposed to be finalized in time for the 1 enlargement of Union. "The numbers of asylum seekers coming into the EU have dropped sharply and are continuing to do so," Lubbers pointed out. "We can improve the management of asylum by focusing on better burden-sharing within the EU," he said. "Even more importantly, we can keep numbers down by investing greater effort and resources in the regions where refugees are coming from. We're already seeing some progress in that respect. There is no need to focus so single-mindedly on reducing standards and trying to deter or deny protection to as many people as possible." Lubbers sent a letter last week to the Irish Prime Minister, , current holder of the EU Presidency, with two detailed notes laying out UNHCR's main concerns: one on the draft Qualification Directive, which lays down the definition of who qualifies as a refugee and who qualifies for subsidiary protection (used for, among others, victims of war); and one on the draft Asylum Procedures Directive, which lays down how that decision is reached in the case of each individual. Lubbers initially raised UNHCR's concerns about the direction the Procedures Directive was heading in a statement last . In its note, UNHCR lays out a range of concerns including the proposed application of the so-called "safe third country" concept under which asylum seekers may be sent back to another country designated as "safe." The agency criticized a "sweeping exemption" that would deny certain asylum seekers access to a procedure altogether, disregarding the possibility that a country generally considered safe "might nonetheless not be safe for particular individuals." This would thereby create a real danger of indirect refoulement [forced return] of refugees to possible persecution in their home country "in contravention of the 1951 Convention and other international human rights law instruments." Connected to this, UNHCR said the criteria for determining the "safety" of a third country are "minimalist" and could lead to asylum seekers being sent back to countries that do not maintain basic human rights standards and where there is no guarantee their cases would be fairly and efficiently examined. This "could amount to an effective denial of the right to seek asylum under international law," UNHCR said. UNHCR also said that draft Articles relating to appeals could also lead to violations of international law. As the text stands, "the vast majority" of rejected asylum seekers who lodge an appeal will not be permitted to remain in the EU until their appeals are decided @ despite the fact that in several European countries 30-60 percent of initial negative decisions are subsequently overturned on appeal. The text contains a list of wide-ranging exceptions to the principle that people should be allowed to remain while their appeals are being considered @ exceptions "which have no relation to the merits of a person's claim, but are based on technical or discretionary factors, or the claimant's behaviour." UNHCR's note said. "For example, persons may be removed pending appeal simply because they have been detained, or because they failed to make an application earlier. Such rules can badly prejudice refugees who are traumatized, confused or simply not properly informed about the asylum process." "The cumulative effect of these proposed measures is that the EU will greatly increase the chances of real refugees being forced back to their home countries," Lubbers said on Monday. "It will be hard to track, because the forced return may take place via a chain of countries, but that does not mean it will not happen. Even a single person being sent back to the risk of torture is one too many." UNHCR also raised a number of major concerns about the current draft of the Qualification Directive, including the proposals to severely limit the scope of what constitutes "serious harm" (and therefore who qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection). These could lead to people fleeing a war zone being rejected from all forms of international protection. Lubbers said that some EU States seemed intent on forcing their own most restrictive and controversial practices on to the books of all 25 future members of the EU. "In some cases," he said on Monday, "these practices have not even been passed into their own national legislation, or are under domestic legal challenge, yet they are pushing them at the EU level." Lubbers also said if the EU adopted the Directives in their current form it would set a negative precedent for other parts of the world, where they would be perceived as an effort to shift the burden back to developing countries which already host the great majority of the world's refugees. "This could have a knock-on effect that might weaken the protection of refugees all across the world," he said. "Other countries will look at the EU and say 'If they can do this, so can we.' "We need to remember the original intentions of the harmonization process, which was to produce a common European asylum system, based @ and here I quote the Conclusions @ 'on the absolute respect for the right to seek asylum' and the 'full and inclusive application' of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. We need to revive that spirit. "Europe should be proud of its tradition of giving asylum, of saving lives," Lubbers added. "The numbers of asylum seekers are going down. We're working hard to find solutions and improve conditions in regions of origin, and we are seeing the successes of that humane policy and its effect on the numbers moving onwards. It would be a real pity if Europe, at this point, were to undermine the great tradition of protecting real refugees." RE: Call for withdrawal of the Asylum Procedures Directive As you are aware, * and the undersigning organisations have closely followed the negotiations on the Commission's proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status throughout the last four years. We have regarded this initiative as a key element of European Union attempts to set minimum standards for asylum legislation in accordance with the . We have also appreciated the Commission's extensive efforts to facilitate an agreement between Member States, amid disparate and often inflexible national positions. We are aware that negotiations have not been finalised yet. However, in the last stage of this lengthy negotiation process, we note that the gaps between this draft Directive and international law have grown even wider and that the recommendations repeatedly issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, , and by civil society organisations have not been duly taken into account. We note with deep regret that the most contentious provisions are all intended to deny asylum seekers access to asylum procedures and to facilitate their transfer to countries outside the EU. We are concerned about the effect that this abdication from international law obligations will have on refugee protection within the EU and elsewhere, as well as on the EU's credibility in the international refugee and human rights debate. We are now unable to further regard this initiative as credible and therefore, we are compelled to call on you to withdraw this proposal, as it remains in breach of the EU's own commitments as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is to become part of the , as well as individual Member States' responsibilities under international refugee and human rights law. This joint letter intends to highlight the main (but not exclusive) concerns of our organisations regarding provisions on safe countries of origin, safe third countries (including 'super safe third countries'), and the appeal system. While the scope of the letter is restricted to these key issues, our organisations also deplore the fact that the Directive will mostly be reduced to a catalogue of optional provisions, leaving critical issues such as detention and the right to legal assistance to Member States' discretion. The current proposal foresees the possibility of using the safe country of origin concept to restrict access to the regular asylum procedure. While the individual may rebut the presumption of safety, s/he may be required to do so in an accelerated procedure with only limited safeguards and with the burden of proof lying exclusively with him/her. Furthermore, the proposal foresees a common list of safe countries of origin binding on all Member States, as a result of which, Member States will be forced to use this concept. In light of recent practice in some Member States, we are very concerned that the safe country of origin concept may be implemented by Members States in a way which amounts to discrimination among refugees in violation of Article 3 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of Union and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are also concerned about the use of the safe third country concept in the proposal, which does not conform with Member States' obligations under international law. The proposal allows Member States to shift responsibility to third countries, regardless of whether the applicant has meaningful links with such countries and whether durable solutions exist there, including protection against refoulement as established by international law and access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure resulting in the recognition of refugee status. Under international refugee law, the primary responsibility for international protection remains with the State where the asylum claim is lodged. A transfer of such responsibility can only be envisaged where a meaningful link exists between an asylum applicant and a third country which makes a transfer reasonable and where the third country is determined safe in the individual circumstances of the applicant. Moreover, a transfer can only take place if the third State gives its consent to admit or readmit the asylum applicant and to provide him/her with full access to a fair and efficient determination procedure. The burden of proof regarding the safety of the third country for the particular applicant lies entirely with the country of asylum and the presumption of safety must be rebuttable by the applicant. The proposal in its current form, however, does not guarantee sufficiently the right of the asylum applicant to rebut the presumption of safety, as it may even allow Member States to reject the claim without considering the particular circumstances of the applicant, and does not contain sufficiently strict criteria for the designation of countries as safe. Furthermore, we are particularly concerned by the exceptional application of the safe third country concept to countries in region, as it appears in the proposal. No country can be labelled as a safe third country for all asylum seekers; a decision on a country's safety for a particular applicant must always be the outcome of an individual examination of the claim, as opposed to a general presumption based on country-related criteria. The exceptional application of the safe third country concept, however, allows Member States to deny access to the procedure to all asylum seekers "illegally" arriving from designated countries in region and strips them of any rights to rebut this presumption. , under the current proposal, a border guard without knowledge of international refugee law or national asylum provisions could be given the sole power to decide on the removal of an asylum applicant to a country even before the competent authority has had the chance to look into the claim. In practice, this would leave the decision-making authority outside any legal framework of accountability for their decisions and could result in a serious risk that Member States may violate their international obligations to guarantee an effective remedy and to protect against refoulement, as enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention; Articles 3 and 13 of Convention on Human Rights; Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture; Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and Articles 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of Union. Given that the proposal does not require that Member States obtain agreement from countries under the exceptional application of the safe third country concept to process the asylum claim before removing the applicant, the implementation of such a concept may lead to refugees-in-orbit situations, and to chain-refoulement, which are in breach of Convention of Human Rights, as it has been repeatedly confirmed by the jurisprudence developed by its Court . We also believe that the proposal does not contain adequate appeal safeguards for asylum seekers. The right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal is embodied in EC law, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of Union and in Article 13 of Convention on Human Rights. As held by Court of Human Rights, it implies the right to remain in the territory of the until a final decision on the application has been taken. Thus, the right of asylum applicants to remain pending a final decision on their cases is essential for Member States to comply with their non-refoulement obligations and international law provisions related to the right to an effective remedy. The proposal, however, does not contain an explicit right of all asylum seekers to remain or request for leave to remain in the asylum country. In light of the above and as organisations committed to promoting international law and fundamental humanitarian values, we find the proposal on asylum procedures, in its current form, unacceptable as a legal basis for minimum standards in Union. Therefore, we are forced to call upon the Commission to withdraw its proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.