WRITTEN QUESTION E-3141/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: EU Member States' use of target figures for the admission, reception and deportation of asylum seekers regardless of the reasons why individuals have fled their countries

1. Is the Commission aware that, in 2001, 22 % of asylum seekers were turned away in the Netherlands after an initial examination of their cases, that the rejection rate has risen to 64 % in 2002 and that the minister with responsibility for immigration and integration in the outgoing Netherlands' Government takes the view that as many as 80 % of asylum seekers ought to be rejected after an initial screening?

2. Do other EU Member States use target figures for the number or percentage of refugees to be admitted? If so, which are they and what target figures do they use?

3. Do the attempts undertaken since the Tampere Summit at the end of 2001 to develop a common EU approach to the admission, reception and deportation of asylum seekers involve target figures, or are certain criteria used without it being possible to predetermine the number of individuals to which the arrangements will apply in a given year?

4. Are there countries now regarded as impossible for refugees to return to, e.g. Somalia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Myanmar (Burma) or North Korea, or does every EU Member State apply its own criteria?

5. Is it at variance with international conventions (on human rights, refugees, protection of the child, etc.) to consider unlawful the continued residence of asylum seekers who are not regarded as refugees, but in respect of whom there are objective grounds for establishing that return is impossible, and to withdraw all facilities and amenities from them (health care, accommodation, income, etc.), even though no attempt at deportation has been made by the government concerned because, in practice, it too assumes that return is impossible?

6. Does the Commission consider it in keeping with the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees for target figures for admission, reception or deportation to be predetermined regardless of the circumstances forcing individuals to leave their countries of origin for their own survival?

7. What developments does the Commission expect and wish to encourage in order to resolve such problems in years to come?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

1. The Commission has not received from the Dutch autorities statistics on asylum decisions which would give it information of figures related to rejection and recognition rates in the Netherlands. The Commission is not able to express a point of view on a general affirmation such as the one referred to, taking into account the fact that asylum is a right which must be recognized on the basis of an individual assessment and of the situation of the country of origin of asylum seekers.

2. So far, the Commission has not been informed of such policies.

3. There are no Community proposals or instruments in place, on the basis of the EC Treaty and the Tampere conclusions, creating target figures or certain criteria predetermining the number of individuals to which admission and reception of individuals will apply in a given year. With regard to deportation, and against the background of the Commission's Communication on the common asylum policy, introducing an open co-ordination method(1), it was also considered to improve the rate of effective implementation of return decisions, including through setting possible specific indicative targets. However, the means would need to be identified and they could cover a variety of measures such as a more qualitative asylum procedure (i.e. leading to a better assessment of needs for international protection), better identification and documentation, improved operational cooperation between Member States and with third countries on return and readmission, etc.

4. There is no common Union determination of countries regarded as impossible to return failed asylum seekers or persons who do not need international protection anymore or illegal residents. At this stage every Member State applies its own criteria when a government makes such a determination, within the framework, however, of respect for non-refoulement and international protection obligations. The Commission has, however, suggested in its recent Communication on a Community return policy on illegal residents(2) that an assessment mechanism should be established, which would provide for assessment of the actual situation in certain countries as to whether removals are feasible or not.

5. The Commission notes that, according to the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, the fact that the return of a failed asylum seeker is impossible, does not imply an obligation to grant a residence permit. Furthermore, in the Commission's proposal on a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection(3), it has been proposed to leave outside the scope of the Directive the issue of the rights and benefits of persons whose return is impossible because of reasons not linked to international protection grounds. Therefore, this is left to Member States discretion, in full respect of national or international human rights obligations.

6. In the absence of Community law, the Commission is not competent to assess the compatibility of national legislation and practices with the provision of the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugee status. At Union level, no policy proposal has been made which might result in rejection and removal of individuals regardless of the circumstances which forced them to leave their countries of origin.

7. The Honourable Member is advised to refer to all the legislative proposals tabled on the basis of article 63 of the EC Treaty since 1999, the Commission Communications on asylum and return already mentioned in previous points of the reply and to the last version of the scoreboard on the establishement of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

(1) COM(2001) 710 final.

(2) COM(2002) 564 final.

(3) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.