Source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4239056/Caritas-Europa-Rue-de-Pascale-B-Bruxelles-CCME-Churches
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 14:16:35
Document Index: 303521619

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 1150', 'Art 6', 'Art 5', 'Arts 2', 'Art 7', 'Art 12', 'Art 2', 'Art 7', 'Arts 20']

Caritas Europa Rue de Pascale B Bruxelles CCME Churches
CCME – Churches&#39; Commission for Migrants in Europe
COMECE – Commission of the Bishops&#39; Conferences of the European Community
42, Rue St&#233;vin, B-1000 Bruxelles
31, Rue Maurice Li&#233;tart, 1150 Bruxelles
ICMC – International Catholic Migration Commission
JRS-Europe – Jesuit Refugee Service Europe
8, Chauss&#233;e d’Haecht, B-1210 Bruxelles
QCEA – Quaker Council for European Affairs
50, Square Ambiorix, B-1000 Bruxelles
on the Commission Proposal for a Council Directive
laying down minimum standards on the reception
of applicants for asylum in Member States
Reception conditions for asylum-seekers currently vary widely across Member-States1. From our
experience as refugee-supporting agencies, the conditions in many cases are so inadequate that
they amount to a very real stumbling block to the pursuit of an asylum claim. Some governments’
misuse of reception conditions as a key method of deterrence had led organisations that assist
refugees to fear that standards are being harmonised on the basis of the lowest common
denominator. Although acknowledging the urgent need of harmonising reception conditions
across the Union, our indicator for measuring any attempt towards harmonisation is whether in
See UNHCR study: “Reception Standards for Asylum Seekers in the European Union”, July 2000 and Legal and
Social Conditions for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Western European Countries, May 2000.
Joint comments on Commission proposal for a Council Directive
on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers
practice it results in “dignified” living conditions. We welcome the fact that the proposed
directive clearly states its adherence to this crucial goal.
Certain aspects of this proposal are very much to be welcomed, in particular the fact that:
•   asylum-seekers with specific needs receive special attention
•   asylum applicants receive a document certifying their status (Art 6) and benefit from
comprehensive information about their rights and duties (Art 5)
•   it is recognised that the general attitude of public opinion towards applicants for asylum
plays a major role in quality of life of applicants.
We are, however, concerned about certain provisions.
It is a matter of profound concern that material reception conditions may be reduced or
withdrawn as punishment for “negative behaviour” as set out in Article 22. While we appreciate
that Member States may need to sanction criminal behaviour, we strongly believe that the normal
national law provisions provide the appropriate mechanism.             We consider it highly
disproportionate to impose destitution as a penalty. Nobody should be deprived of basic
assistance. Member States should always act in consistence with their human rights obligations.
Although we appreciate the principle that asylum seekers shall be given opportunity to earn their
living at the latest after a six-month waiting period, we are deeply concerned that Member States
should have the opportunity to opt out of further assistance to asylum seekers three months later.
Material reception conditions can be withdrawn or reduced when the asylum-seeker and
accompanying family members have an income that will support a dignified life-style, not at the
end of an arbitrary time period.
We are also very concerned that the proposal allows Member States to reduce or withdraw
assistance where asylum applicants stay with relatives or friends. While such a reduction might
be appropriate in some cases, it might also create severe hardship in others. We urge that any
decision to reduce or withdraw the material aid on the grounds that the applicant is staying with
friends or relatives be taken individually.
We appreciate that the Commission undertook the challenging attempt to reformulate reception
conditions from first principles, taking into consideration an assessment of experience of Member
States and other Civil Society actors.
We take the opportunity to thank the European Commission that churches and non-governmental
organisations were given the opportunity to provide constructive remarks in the process of
consultation on the basis of a discussion paper prior to the finalisation of this proposal. While
welcoming the process of consultation with civil society actors on the specific Directive, we
would like to recommend developing a formal procedure of consultations like those existing in
some Member States and to use this procedure in the preparation of all proposals for legal
instruments2.
Embedding the discussion on reception conditions in a broader but related context, we would like
to stress the importance of legal access to the territory for asylum-seekers, State-sponsored
provision of legal counselling and representation, and an increase in the quality of asylum
The following comments are based on our conviction that all asylum seekers have the right to
humane and dignified treatment. A large proportion of asylum seekers need protection; many are
refugees according to the Geneva Convention; some need protection according to other human
rights standards; and still others need protection because of humanitarian concerns. Therefore, for
as long as there is no final decision on an asylum claim according to international obligations, the
person concerned must be treated as a presumptive refugee and in a way that respects his/her
CHAPTER I: SUBJECT MATTER DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE
Article 2: Definitions &amp; Article 3: Scope
Arts 2(b), 3(1)      The limitation of the scope of this Directive to asylum applicants who are third
country nationals is reasonable on the basis that EU nationals applying for
asylum in Member States other than their own4 are still entitled to benefit from
their rights as EU citizens which would include equal treatment.
Article 2 (d) (i)    This provision defines as a family member the unmarried partner in a stable
relationship only where the legislation of the relevant Member State treats
unmarried couples in the same way as married couples. Since, however, equal
treatment of married and unmarried couples is often based on jurisprudence or
common practice rather than on legislation per se we recommend replacing the
word “legislation” by “legislation, jurisprudence or practice”.
Article 3 (1)        We welcome the fact that this Directive applies to border procedures.
This issue was recently taken up by the European Commission in its White Paper on European Governance (COM
(2001) 428 of 25 July 2001).
See Caritas Europa position paper “Fair treatment for asylum seekers”, February 2001 and this joint comments’
authors’ comments on the Communication by the Commission towards a common asylum procedure and a
uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum, May 2001
Member states may opt out of the so-called Spanish protocol (Protocol No. 29 to the Treaty of Amsterdam), as
Belgium has done.
Article 3 (1,2,3)   The Directive invites Member States to apply these reception conditions to
applicants for forms of protection other than the Geneva Convention. We urge
the Commission to make this provision a mandatory rather than a discretionary
one, on the basis that a two-tier reception system is more complicated to
administer and is not logically justified. Given that some states apply a single
procedure and status for all forms of protection, and that there is a genuine
possibility that such a system could at a future date apply to the whole Union5,
it would be unreasonable to differentiate between the different forms of
protection in this context. Furthermore granting different rights to applicants
for various forms of protection might lead to pressure on the person seeking
complementary protection to apply for asylum. We support the position of
UNHCR that:
“The question of what basic rights and benefits asylum-seekers
deserve in order to live in dignity while they are awaiting the
determination of their protection claims should be based on
their needs rather than on the grounds on which their claims
are based.”6
The goal of avoiding secondary movements within the Union is an argument
against leaving the application of reception standards to Member States’
discretion. At the same time, we are aware that the Amsterdam Treaty only
provides a weak legal basis for including applicants for complementary forms
of protection into this Directive.
CHAPTER II: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON RECEPTION CONDITIONS
Article 5: Information &amp; Article 6: Documentation
Articles 5,6        We very much welcome the provisions on information and documentation.
Article 5 (2)       This provision obliges Member States to inform each adult accompanying
family member of the right to make a separate application for asylum. From
our point of view there is no logical reason for this limitation as minors are
also entitled to apply for asylum. From practical experience we know
individual cases from regions such as Kosovo, Bosnia or Rwanda where the
children within a family had the strongest or even the only protection needs
under the Geneva Convention. We urge that this provision’s obligation to
provide information be extended to include non-adult members of the family
who are old enough to understand the implications.
See discussion in Commission’s Communication on asylum, November 2000.
UNHCR Comments on the European Commission Proposal for a Council Directive laying down Minimum
Standards on the Reception of Applicants for Asylum in Member States, July 2001
Article 7: Freedom of movement
Article 7 (1, 3, 4) The proposal in Art 7 (1) leaves it to Member States whether they grant
applicants freedom of movement within the territory or in a specific area only.
In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, their right to free
movement within the State must not be curtailed. We strongly urge that
asylum-seekers and their accompanying family members should have free
movement throughout the territory of the Member State in which they apply
for asylum. Member States are obliged to fully guarantee free movement
within the host country under Art 12 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and Art 2,3 of the Protocol 4 to the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Against
this background we recommend the deletion of the words “or in a specific area
of it under the conditions set out in this Article” from Art 7 (1) and the related
paragraphs 3-5.
Article 7 (2)        We believe as a general rule that asylum seekers should not be detained.
Asylum applicants should only be detained as a last resort in exceptional cases
when non-custodial measures have proven on individual grounds not to
achieve the lawful and legitimate purpose.7
Neither the proposed Directive on asylum procedures nor the proposed
Directive on reception set out conditions of detention and the procedural
guarantees applying in cases of detention. We support UNHCR’s view8 that
under Article 63 of the Amsterdam Treaty, it is most appropriate to
incorporate these provisions in the Directive on reception conditions, and we
urge that they be based on the UNHCR Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and
Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers9.
In particular, we urge that asylum seekers should not be held with convicted
prisoners or those on remand.
Article 9: Families
Article 9            We welcome the recognition of the importance of family unity.
Article 11: Medical screening
Article 11           Being aware that medical personnel must observe confidentiality on
individuals’ medical history, we consider that it would nevertheless be helpful
For more details, see Caritas Europa Migration Commission comments on the proposal for a Directive on minimum
standards on procedures in member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; May 2001
UNHCR Guidelines February 1999
if there was a provision added that expressively stated that the results of
medical screening shall be confidential. To avoid misunderstandings, asylum-
seekers and their accompanying family members should be informed that this
rule of confidentiality applies, and that the results of screening will not
prejudice their application for protection.
Article 12: Schooling and education of minors
Article 12 (1)    This provision specifies that minors shall be younger than the age of legal
majority in the relevant Member State. We note that in article 2 (i)
unaccompanied minors are defined as persons below the age of eighteen.
There is a potential inconsistency between these two definitions. For the sake
of consistency we recommend the same definition of the age of majority be
used throughout the Directive.
Article 13: Employment
Articles 13 (1)   We welcome the provision that Member States shall not forbid access to the
labour market for more than six months. At the same time the proposal leaves
it open to Member States to lay down the conditions for the access to the
labour market. According to the Explanatory Memorandum this means that
Member States “can decide the kind of work asylum applicants may apply for,
the amount of time per month or per year they are allowed to work, the skills
they should have, etc.”. This interpretation in practice enables Member States
to block access by asylum seekers to the labour market – and constitutes a
hidden opt-out-clause. We would like to see a much stronger commitment to
offering asylum seekers the opportunity to earn their own living and become
Article 13 (3)    This proposal allows Member-States to restrict access to the labour market as
a penalty for “negative behaviour” by applicants. We have serious
reservations about the appropriateness of this punishment; see below our
comments on article 22.
Article 14: Vocational Training
Article 14        We welcome the proposal’s provision that Member States may not forbid
access to vocational training to asylum applicants and their accompanying
family members for longer than six months.
Since language skills are crucial for succeeding in seeking for job
opportunities, the Directive should invite Member States to offer language
training as soon as possible after the procedure is started.
We urge the creation of a coherent system for the swift recognition of asylum-
seekers’ professional qualifications, accompanied by any assistance necessary
to align an individual’s skills to the needs of the EU labour market. This
approach is also likely to make a later return to the country of origin more
viable, as the individual is able to return with more skills and hence should be
better able to provide for himself/herself and in many cases perhaps also
provide a valuable contribution to a recovering society.10
Our comments in relation to Article 22 also apply to Article 14 (3).
CHAPTER III: MATERIAL RECEPTION CONDITIONS
Article 15 (1)         We observe a lacuna in the provision of material aid: assistance may end upon
the notification of a negative first instance decision (Article 15.1 (a)) and
resume upon lodging of an appeal (Article 15.1 (b)): during these two stages
several days or weeks may elapse, during which the asylum seeker is putting
together the elements of his or her appeal. It is unacceptable to submit the
asylum applicant and accompanying family members to the risk of destitution
and homelessness during this process. We urge that material aid be provided
after notification of any negative decision preceding the final determination
until the deadline for lodging an appeal has elapsed.
Article 15.1 (b) apparently limits material reception conditions during the
appeal procedures to situations where the appeal has suspensive effect. Where
an appeal does not have a suspensive effect11 but the applicant has not been
removed from the territory he/she should still be entitled to benefit from
Article 15 (2)         We welcome that the proposal obliges Member States to ensure that material
reception conditions to be adequate for the health and the well being of
applicants as well as the protection of their human rights. We recommend that
this standard be defined according to objective criteria applicable to all
Member States (see comments on Article 17).
Article 15 (3)         The Commission proposes that material reception conditions may be provided
in kind, or in form of financial allowances or of vouchers. Experience has
shown that providing material reception conditions in the form of vouchers or
assistance in kind has not in fact created dignified living conditions for
See this joint comments’ authors’ comments on the Communication by the Commission towards a common
asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum, May 2001
Here we would like to reaffirm our insistence that it is essential for appeals in asylum cases to have suspensive
asylum seekers and their accompanying family members. A system that limits
where asylum-seekers can shop and what they can buy, and that makes their
status readily apparent to the public has been shown to stigmatise, impoverish
and create substantial hardship for asylum-seekers. Therefore we are opposed
to any voucher or non-cash system. Material reception conditions should
always be provided in the form of financial allowances; there is no evidence to
show that such a system creates a pull-effect.
Article 15 (4)   The proposal allows Member States to reduce or withdraw material reception
conditions three months after applicants have been allowed access to the
labour market. The Commission intends to oblige Member States - as far as
the applicants are not financially independent - only to grant a food allowance
and access to basic health care. Since some of the Member States could
decide to limit reception conditions to a very low level by applying this
provision, we have serious concerns about this opt-out clause. Material
reception conditions should be withdrawn or reduced when the asylum-seeker
and accompanying family members are truly financially independent, not at
the end of an arbitrary time period.
If this provision is retained, it is crucial that “basic social care” is defined in
terms that ensure that the system does not create a real risk of hardship for
those who are not financially independent after this time limit, a category
likely to include the most vulnerable of refugees, including those who may be
unable to work due to ill-health or the necessity of caring for family members.
Article 16: Housing
Article 16       We are concerned that asylum applicants in receipt of a “grant of a financial
allowance or vouchers sufficient to enable applicants to find independent
housing” under Article 16.1 (d) are apparently excluded from the guaranteed
access to emergency health and psychological care and to health care that
cannot be postponed under Article 16.2 (a). Given the general guarantee of
health-care in Article 20, we do not believe that this lacuna was intended;
however, for the sake of certainty, we would like to see an explicit statement
that the guarantee of access to health-care under Article 16.2 (a) also applies to
persons housed under the terms of Article 16.1 (d).
While welcoming the guarantees laid down in this section, we urge the
inclusion of a guarantee of respect for the cultural and spiritual needs of
applicants and their families.
We recommend that large-scale accommodation centres be avoided on the
basis that they are more likely to institutionalise occupants and hamper
We are deeply concerned about insensitive dispersal policies that distance
asylum seekers from the support of their communities and from essential
services, including expert legal advice. Furthermore, experience has shown
that exposing asylum seekers to communities that are ill prepared for their
arrival can led to serious tensions.
We recommend the Directive require Member States to ensure asylum seekers
are housed in a safe and supportive environment.
Article 17: Total amount of allowances or vouchers
Article 17        Although we welcome that the proposal makes the attempt of defining the
level of material assistance by reference to the poverty line, we would be very
much in favour of including a definition of poverty either into the provisions
or at least in the Explanatory memorandum. We recall that as defined on the
EUROSTAT equivalence scale, the threshold level below which one would be
threatened by poverty lies at 60% of the average per capita income.
We are deeply concerned that the proposal allows Member States to reduce or
withdraw assistance where asylum applicants stay with relatives or friends.
While such a reduction might be appropriate in some cases, it might also
create severe hardship in others. The relatives and friends of asylum
applicants should not be penalised for offering hospitality to applicants. Such
a measure is also likely to prove counterproductive in increasing the likelihood
that asylum applicants will have recourse to places in reception centres. There
may also be more absenteeism from reception centres, as asylum seekers
nominally accommodated in such centres stay with the relatives and friends
with whom they would otherwise have chosen to live. We believe that the
possibility of staying with friends and relatives can be of benefit to individual
applicants and to Member States, and it should not be hindered. We agree to
the principle that as far as applicants are self-sufficient they do not need to
receive any material support.
We urge that any decision to reduce or withdraw the material aid on the
grounds that the applicant is staying with friends of relatives be taken
individually. In addition to establishing an independent office that can hear
complaints, we urge that any decision in this regard shall be taken objectively,
impartially and with reasons given, and that applicants should have the right to
appeal such a decision, as set out in Articles 19 and 21.
CHAPTER IV: HEALTH AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CARE
Article 20: Health and psychological care during regular procedures &amp;
Article 21: Health and psychological care during other procedures
Article 20        As noted above in our comments on Article 15 (1), we are concerned that there
is a gap between loss of the care upon notification of a negative decision and
resumption of the care upon lodging of an appeal: during these two stages
several days or weeks may elapse, during which the asylum-seeker should not
be deprived of health and psychological care. We urge that this entitlement
should remain valid after notification of any negative decision preceding the
final determination until the deadline for lodging an appeal has elapsed.
Arts 20(2),       We feel it necessary to underline that this is not an exhaustive list of
21(2)             persons who may have special needs. In particular, we are concerned about
the omission of traumatised persons and persons who have experience torture
and other forms of violence, which may not be gender-related.
CHAPTER V: REDUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF RECEPTION CONDITIONS
Article 22: Reduction or withdrawal of reception conditions following negative behaviour
Article 22        This article provides for a reduction or withdrawal of reception support in the
case of applicants for asylum who manifest “negative behaviour.” We regard
it as a serious breach of human rights to inflict destitution and homelessness
on an asylum applicant and accompanying family members as a punitive
measure. A Member State national who commits a criminal offence is not at
risk of losing social assistance, a sanction which is hugely disproportionate to
the alleged offences envisaged in the Article. An applicant who has concealed
financial resources could be required to make financial restitution of the
amount by which he is deemed to have unduly benefited; an applicant who has
behaved in a violent or threatening manner may be punishable under national
criminal law; an applicant who prevents a minor from attending school may
require the intervention of an appropriately-trained social worker. While we
appreciate that Member States may need to sanction criminal behaviour, we
strongly believe that the national criminal law provisions provide the
It is important that asylum-seekers are informed as to what will be deemed to
constitute “negative behaviour” and what the potential sanctions are.
CHAPTER VI: PROVISIONS FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Article 23: General principle
Article 23        While we welcome the provision for people with special needs, we feel that
there is potential for confusion, given that the category is defined differently in
Articles 20 and 21. We recommend that the definition in Article 23 should be
used throughout the Directive. It should be made clear that the list is not
exhaustive; the principle of individual evaluation is an important one. Other
individuals, such as those recently bereaved, may also have special needs.
Article 24: Minors &amp; Article 25: Unaccompanied minors
Articles 24, 25   We welcome the provisions relating to minors and unaccompanied minors.
CHAPTER VII: ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE RECEPTION
Article 29: Local communities
Article 29        We welcome the reference to measures to promote harmonious relationships
with local communities. While this is very important for communities where
accommodation centres are located, we recall that many asylum-seekers and
refugees do not live in accommodation centres, and we urge Member States to
take measures to promote harmonious relationships between local
communities and asylum-seekers throughout their territory, wherever asylum-
seekers may be located.
We are concerned at some of the terms used about refugees and asylum
seekers in the media and in public debate, which has a negative effect on
public opinion. We recommend that Member States encourage the national
media to draw up some principles of best practice in this area. We also urge
Member States to make a resolute commitment to give leadership in and to
promote the use of accurate and sensitive terminology in the debate on asylum.
As well as combating negative attitudes, we underline that asylum seekers and
refugees can make a positive contribution to our societies, and this benefit
should be reflected in public discourse.
Article 30: Guidance, monitoring and control system
Article 30             We welcome that Member States are required to provide for the guidance,
monitoring and control of the level of reception conditions.
Echoing the position of UNHCR, we are convinced that:
“An adequate standard of reception enables asylum-seekers to
present their asylum claims properly and sufficiently, to co-operate
with the asylum authorities throughout the procedure and, more
generally, to build trust and confidence in the asylum process. In
turn, fair and expeditious procedures that quickly and properly
identify who is in need of international protection and who is not
help reduce the financial costs attached to the implementation of
reception schemes”.12
As organisations representing Christian churches throughout Europe, Roman Catholic, Orthodox,
Protestant, Quaker and Anglican, as well as church agencies particularly concerned with migrants
and refugees, it is part of our tradition to care for the oppressed and to uphold the dignity of the
human individual. Against this background, and given that reception conditions are such a
crucial part of the asylum system as a whole, we take this opportunity to contribute our
Caritas Europa Rue de Pascale B Bruxelles CCME Churches, Caritas Europa, de Pascale, member organisations, Caritas Internationalis, Humanitarian aid, civil society, Member States, European countries, budget support
Caritas Europa green paper consultation
Caritas Europa Seminar on Partnership and Inter-regional cooperation
The work of Caritas Europa during the reporTing period Planul strategic Caritas Moldova
German_EU_Presidency-NGO_Analysis-Aprodev-CIDSE-Caritas_EU_NL_131206
CD Caritas Iasi Raport de activitate 2008
euromedorg - EACEA - Europa
Advocacy Paper for COATNET affiliates - Caritas