WRITTEN QUESTION No. 313/97 by Michèle LINDEPERG to the Council. Council's policy on the right of asylum
Date: 1997-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament, LINDEPERG
Subjects: aid to refugees, approximation of laws, human rights, international human rights law, refugee, right of asylum













EUR-Lex - 91997E0313 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0313

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 313/97 by Michèle LINDEPERG to the Council. Council's policy on the right of asylum  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0060 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/97 by Michèle Lindeperg (PSE) to the Council (14 February 1997)Subject: Council's policy on the right of asylumEveryone agrees that asylum procedures must be harmonized.Some decisions have already been taken, including those on 'manifestly unfounded applications', the concept of 'safe third countries', 'minimum guarantees on asylum', the 'harmonized application of the definition of refugee in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention', etc.However, those decisions have two things in common:- their content is almost exclusively repressive;- the legal instruments used are often ineffective since they are not binding.The results speak for themselves:- The number of applications is in free fall, and at the same time there has been a steep drop in the proportion of cases in which asylum granted.- As a result, cases of human tragedy are on the increase, which is particularly true for people persecuted by non-State groups (Somalis, Liberians or Algerians in France).It has reached the point where recent judgments of European and national courts have repudiated measures adopted by the Member States:- The report of 15 October 1996 of the European Commission of Human Rights deals with three cases involving the United Kingdom, Austria and France. If its arguments are upheld by the Court, more protection would be given to asylum-seekers fleeing persecution by non-State groups.- The judgment of 18 December 1992 of the French Conseil d'Etat (State Council) calls into question France's interpretation of 'manifestly unfounded applications' and the concept of 'safe third country' and at the same time rejects the administration's arguments based on the 1992 London resolutions on the ground that they are 'devoid of normative value'.Is the Council going to wait for judicial decisions of this kind to multiply and create difficulties for it, or is it going to seize the initiative and adopt binding decisions to guarantee protection in the EU - in a form still to be determined - for persons who are genuinely persecuted, even if the persecution does not emanate from State authorities?Answer (30 May 1997)The Treaty on European Union confirms the commitment of the Member States of the European Union to the Geneva Convention. The decisions of the Council to which l'Honourable Parliamentarian refers are aimed only at clarification of the interpretion of the Geneva Convention. The changes in the proportion of asylum seekers accepted as refugees under the Geneva Convention are a reflection of migration pressures and trends, not of the quality of interpretation of the Geneva Convention. The position on persecution by non-state groups is set out in the Council's common position of 4 March 1996 ((OJ L 63, 13.03.1996. )), which does not rule out a Member State providing wider protection.