# CE2004084EN.01094001.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/940 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/940

---

(2004/C 84 E/1038)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1082/04

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Decision taken by the Netherlands to expel more than 26 000 whose applications for asylum have been rejected

Subject:

In the light of the decision taken by the Netherlands to expel several thousand asylum-seekers whose applications have been dismissed:

| 1. | Does not that decision breach the principle of non-refoulement because of the situation currently obtaining in the countries of origin of a number of asylum-seekers (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.)?
  It would appear that some of the people denied asylum meet the Geneva Convention criteria and may not be expelled to their countries of origin, where they might be killed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does not that decision breach the principle of non-refoulement because of the situation currently obtaining in the countries of origin of a number of asylum-seekers (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.)?

It would appear that some of the people denied asylum meet the Geneva Convention criteria and may not be expelled to their countries of origin, where they might be killed.

| 2. | Must we not take the view that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been breached, in so far as the rejected asylum-seekers are being expelled immediately after the first notification that their application has been rejected and (since, accordingly measures should be taken to review their cases) although they should have the right to lodge an appeal against that decision?
  It seems that the applications from a large number of asylum-seekers were not given fair consideration between 1993 and 1998 (because of what is known as the 48-hour AC procedure, which did not allow the asylum-seekers to submit evidence which they had obtained subsequently). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must we not take the view that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been breached, in so far as the rejected asylum-seekers are being expelled immediately after the first notification that their application has been rejected and (since, accordingly measures should be taken to review their cases) although they should have the right to lodge an appeal against that decision?

It seems that the applications from a large number of asylum-seekers were not given fair consideration between 1993 and 1998 (because of what is known as the 48-hour AC procedure, which did not allow the asylum-seekers to submit evidence which they had obtained subsequently).

| 3. | Should we not condemn the use by the Netherlands Government of the English words ‘deport’ and ‘deportation centre’? The use of such words seems at the very least inappropriate or unsuitable in this context. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should we not condemn the use by the Netherlands Government of the English words ‘deport’ and ‘deportation centre’? The use of such words seems at the very least inappropriate or unsuitable in this context.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

(29 April 2004)

| 1. | At present, the Commission has no power to intervene in individual cases concerning the removal of asylum seekers from the Netherlands. The two proposals for directives that would be relevant have not yet been adopted by the Council (the directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures and the directive on the qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection). Given that this proposed Community legislation is not yet adopted or in force, the Commission cannot examine whether the principle of non-refoulement would be at stake in the individual cases. |
| --- | --- |

1.

At present, the Commission has no power to intervene in individual cases concerning the removal of asylum seekers from the Netherlands. The two proposals for directives that would be relevant have not yet been adopted by the Council (the directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures and the directive on the qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection). Given that this proposed Community legislation is not yet adopted or in force, the Commission cannot examine whether the principle of non-refoulement would be at stake in the individual cases.

| 2. | The Commission would like to refer the right Honourable Member to the reply to question No E-0618/04 from Ms Karamanou (1). Moreover, the Commission would like to stress that if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been or are being violated, he or she can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhaustion of national remedies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission would like to refer the right Honourable Member to the reply to question No E-0618/04 from Ms Karamanou (1). Moreover, the Commission would like to stress that if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been or are being violated, he or she can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhaustion of national remedies.

1

| 3. | The Commission suggested the term ‘removal’ instead of ‘deportation’ for instance in its Communication on a community return policy on illegal residents (2). It must be emphasised, however, that there is no legally binding terminology in this context. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission suggested the term ‘removal’ instead of ‘deportation’ for instance in its Communication on a community return policy on illegal residents (2). It must be emphasised, however, that there is no legally binding terminology in this context.

2

---

(1)  See page 822.

1

(2)  COM(2002) 564 final.

2

---