DOCSLIB.ORG

The Eurodac Debate: Is It Blurring the Line Between Asylum and Fight Against Terrorism?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Eurodac Debate: Is It Blurring the Line Between Asylum and Fight Against Terrorism? The Eurodac Debate: Is It Blurring the Line Between Asylum and Fight Against Terrorism? Elif Mendos Kuşkonmaz Introduction Eurodac is a transnational database, established in 2000 and came into force in 2003, which contains personal and biometric information of all asylum seekers and illegal immigrants found within the European Union.1 The database primarily established to help EU Member States find out whether an asylum applicant has previously claimed asylum in another EU Member State or whether an asylum seeker has previously apprehended when entering EU territory illegally. It aims to facilitate the application of Dublin Regulation and hence to assist Member States in the determination of the country responsible for examining as asylum application. It obliges all Member States to take fingerprints from the asylum applicants who are 14 and over or others apprehended for ille- gally crossing the borders. Having said that, new Eurodac Regulation which was adopted in June 2013 by the European Council and will come into force in 2015 with introducing a number of changes to the system. The most notable change is the provision on granting national law enforcement authorities and Europol access to Eurodac for law enforcement purposes.2 Hence, widespread concerns have been voiced by different stakeholders. This 1 Within this essay the term Eurodac is used as a reference to the database itself. 2 It is pertinent to note here that a number of changes to the system will also come into force in 2015. However, this essay is primarily concerned with the most controversial change introduced to the system which is granting access to national law enforcement and Europol access to Eurodac. 80 Elif Mendos Kuşkonmaz [Annales XLV, N. 62, 79-102, 2013] essay seeks to analyse different comments and concerns made pro or contra. The emphasis will be placed upon whether it is necessary and proportionate to widen the access to Eurodac for law enforcement pur- poses taking the public safety on one hand and fundamental rights of the asylum seekers as the target group on the other. The central discus- sion in respect of potential breaches of fundamental rights of this target group will be based on the right to privacy, right to protection of personal data and prohibition of discrimination. I will argue that there is lack of evidence to support the necessity to allow access to national law enforce- ment authorities and Europol. To support my argument the essay will briefly explain the estab- lishment of Eurodac. Having framed the current system, the essay will continue with illustrating the map leading to enabling access to Euro- dac for law enforcement purposes. Later it will approach to this change from a human rights perspective, arguing whether it is compatible with right to privacy and protection of personal data. Finally, it will deal with intrusions of the rights of a very vulnerable group, asylum seekers and discrimination concerns over them. I. The Establishment of Eurodac A. First Initiatives and its Original Purpose The journey through the EU law relating to asylum is a complex area. With the Schengen Agreement abolishing the internal borders, Member States agreed upon strengthening the control of external bor- ders by police and judicial co-operation. Abolishment of internal borders also created the fear of uncontrolled asylum applications since once en- tered into the territory of the EU, an asylum seeker can apply for asylum in member states with most generous procedures.3 Hence, in order to regulate asylum claims, the EU established the Dublin Convention in 1990, entered into force in 1997.4 This convention then was replaced by 3 P. Boeles et al. European Migration Law (Intersentia 2009) 316. 4 Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum The Eurodac Debate: Is It Blurring the Line Between Asylum and Fight Against Terrorism? 81 Dublin Regulation in which a list of criteria to allocate asylum seekers to one of the Member States was introduced in order to revent asylum seekers from applying asylum in multiple Member States.5 Hence, it determines the first Member State that an asylum seeker reaches as re- sponsible to investigate an asylum application.6 Inevitably, the effective- ness of this rule depend on the possibility to identify asylum seekers and to establish their travel route into the EU.7 However, generally, asylum applicants have no documents or they have fake ones and this creates one of the most important problems in the application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible for asylum claims.8 Back in 1991, at a very early stage of the Dublin system, it was ac- knowledged that there has to be an objective mechanism for ascertain- ing responsibility for asylum claims and negotiations on establishing an automated fingerprint application system began9. On February 1993, the Working Group on Asylum asked the Legal Service of the Council to give advice on the question whether former Article 15 of the Dublin Convention could be used as the legal basis for the creation of Eurodac. According to this former article Member States shall exchange, upon re- quest, the individual data which are necessary for the examination of an application for asylum, allocate the Member State which is responsible lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities (Dublin Convention) (1990) OJ C 254. This regulation was also replaced by Regulation No. 604/2013 (i.e. Dublin III) in June 2013. 5 Evelien Brouwer Digital Borders and Real Rights, Effective Remedies for Third-Country Na- tionals in the Schengen Information System (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 118. Dublin Regula- tion was also replaced by Regulation 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an ap- plication for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third- country national or a stateless person (recast) (Dublin III) (2013) OJ L 180/31. 6 Brouwer Digital Borders and Real Rights, Effective Remedies for Third-Country Nationals in the Schengen Information System (n 5) 118. 7 Kay Hailbronner, Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy of the European Union (Kluwer Law International 2000) 401 8 ibid. 9 Jonathan P. Aus, ‘Eurodac: a solution looking for a problem’ (2006) European Integration Online Papers < http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2006_006a/24> accessed 12 April 2014, 7. 82 Elif Mendos Kuşkonmaz [Annales XLV, N. 62, 79-102, 2013] for examine this application, and for the execution of all obligations re- sulting from the Convention. In its advice, the Legal Service confirmed that former Article 15 of the Dublin Convention provided sufficient legal basis for the establishment of Eurodac. It is striking that the Legal Service made an important restriction to the use of it. As Brouwer pointed out, the Legal Service explicitly stated that the database could not be used for other purposes, like “the functioning of other international instruments or for starting criminal investigations against asylum seekers.”10 Overall, it was this limited purpose that the Eurodac could be established in the first place. At its meeting on 23 November 1995, the Council of Justice and Home Affairs (i.e. JHA) having declared that the exchange of asylum seekers’ fingerprints through Eurodac is technically and legally feasible and decided to start the legislative work.11 However, only after 5 years that the Eurodac Regulation was finally adopted. One of the reason behind this relatively late adoption was because of the political debate revolved around the interests of the Member States for establishing a central registration system for fingerprints. Some Member States, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Austria were especially interested in such a system. On the contrary the Southern Member States which were often the first country for arrival for asylum seekers, such as Italy and Greece were less interested.12 During the Eurodac negotiations, it was agreed to extend the per- sonal scope of the system to illegal migrants. After the arrival of a large number of immigrants from Iraq to Europe in mid-1997, response to this refugee crisis was urged by some Northern European countries in particular.13 In December 1997, the Schengen Executive Committee de- 10 Brouwer Digital Borders and Real Rights, Effective Remedies for Third-Country Nationals in the Schengen Information System (n 5) 118. 11 11476/95 ASIM 308 cited in Brouwer Digital Borders and Real Rights, Effective Remedies for Third-Country Nationals in the Schengen Information System (n 5) 119. 12 Aus (n 9). Elspeth Guild, ‘The Bitter Fruits of an EU Common Asylum Policy’ 61-76 in: Thierry Balzacq and Sergio Carrera (eds.), Security Versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future (Ashgate 2006). 13 Brouwer Digital Borders and Real Rights, Effective Remedies for Third-Country Nationals in The Eurodac Debate: Is It Blurring the Line Between Asylum and Fight Against Terrorism? 83 cided to create a Task Force and on 21 April 1998, under strong pressure from the German delegation, it adopted a formal decision with regard to “fingerprinting of every foreign national entering the Schengen area illegally whose identity cannot be established with certainty on the basis of valid documents.”14 In line with the ongoing technical preparations for launching the Eurodac database, the Schengen Group also called for the “retention of fingerprints for the purpose of informing the authorities in other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VIEWED from the OTHER SIDE: Media Coverage and Personal Tales of Migration in Iraqi Kurdistan
    VIEWED FROM THE OTHER SIDE: Media Coverage and Personal Tales of Migration in Iraqi Kurdistan Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud, Espen Gran, Mohammed A. Salih, Sareng Aziz Viewed from the other Side: Media Coverage and Personal Tales of Migration in Iraqi Kurdistan Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud, Espen Gran, Mohammed A. Salih and Sareng Aziz IMK Report 2012 Department of Media and Communication Faculty of Humanities University of Oslo Viewed from the other side: Media Coverage and Personal Tales of Migration in Iraqi Kurdistan Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ III Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... IV Executive summary ............................................................................................................. V The coverage of migration in Iraqi Kurdistan ....................................................................VI Why certain frames and stories dominate in the news – findings from elite interviews .... VII The main motivations of migration in Iraqi Kurdistan .......................................................IX The experiences of those who have returned from Europe – expectations and disappointments ................................................................................................................IX Knowledge and evaluation of European immigration and return policies ............................ X Main conclusions ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Burden Sharing and Dublin Rules – Challenges of Relocation of Asylum Seekers
    Athens Journal of Law - Volume 3, Issue 1 – Pages 7-20 Burden Sharing and Dublin Rules – Challenges of Relocation of Asylum Seekers By Lehte Roots Mediterranean route has become the most used irregular migration route to access the borders of European Union. Dublin regulation has set up principles that a country which has allowed the immigrant to access its territory either by giving a visa or giving an opportunity to cross the border is responsible for asylum application and the processing procedure of this application. These rules have put an enormous pressure to the EU countries that are at the Mediterranean basin to deal with hundreds of thousands of immigrants. At the same time EU is developing its migration legislation and practice by changing the current directives. The role of the Court of Justice in this development should also not be under diminished. From one point of view EU is a union where principles of solidarity and burden sharing should be the primary concern, the practice though shows that the initiatives of relocation of asylum seekers and refugees is not taken by some EU member states as a possibility to contribute to these principles, but as a threat to their sovereignty. This paper is discussing the further opportunities and chances to develop the EU migration law and practice in order to facilitate the reception of persons arriving to EU borders by burden sharing. Keywords: Irregular migration, relocation, resettlement, Dublin rules, burden sharing Introduction “We all recognized that there are no easy solutions and that we can only manage this challenge by working together, in a spirit of solidarity and responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Migration Crisis
    The European Migration Crisis: A Pendulum between the Internal © 2019 IAI and External Dimensions by Alberto Tagliapietra ABSTRACT After the migration crisis that hit Europe in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the European Union decided to move towards ISSN 2610-9603 | ISBN 978-88-9368-104-9 an externalisation approach on the migration phenomenon in order to stop the influx of people headed to the Continent before they reach European shores. The first step on this path was the signing of the EU–Turkey agreement, a deal presented as an emergency solution to the situation that was developing in Europe. After the success of this accord in reducing the number of arrivals, the European Union introduced the Migration Partnership Framework, which fundamentally institutionalised the approach enshrined in the EU–Turkey agreement with five priority countries in Africa – namely, Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. European Union | Migration | Refugees | Mediterranean | Turkey | Africa | keywords Ethiopia | Niger IAI PAPERS 19 | 12 - JUNE 2019 IAI PAPERS The European Migration Crisis: A Pendulum between the Internal and External Dimensions The European Migration Crisis: A Pendulum between the Internal and External Dimensions by Alberto Tagliapietra* © 2019 IAI Introduction The migration crisis faced by the European Union can be traced back to the sociopolitical events that took place in the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) region in 2011. Following the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” uprisings across the region, an increasing number of people decided to move towards Europe. The situation highlighted EU deficiencies in the field of migration, and placed unprecedented pressure on the mechanisms that the Union had established in this field.
    [Show full text]
  • European Reactions to the Migrant Crisis
    European reactions to the migrant crisis Jérôme Fourquet Director of Ifop’s Opinion and Corporate Strategies Department How is European public opinion reacting to the arrival of migrants on the shores of Italy and Greece? What are their perceptions of the profile and number of migrants? How do the citizens of the different European Union (EU) countries regard the solutions put in place by their government? To answer these questions, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation and the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) appointed Ifop to carry out a major opinion poll in seven European countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK, based on a sample of 1000 to 1100 people in each country. A. Responding to the crisis by assisting with the development of the countries of departure In view of the magnitude of the migration crisis, European public opinion is united in favour of assisting with the development and stabilisation of southern Mediterranean countries to keep people where they are. This option comes well ahead of developing aid and welcome programmes for immigrants to European countries, tightening border controls or military intervention in Syria. As can be seen in the following chart, the level of public support for assisting with development varies from country to country, but it came out on top everywhere, except in France, where the option “strengthening border controls and combatting illegal immigration” came nominally first, with 30% of votes (by far the highest score noted in the seven countries covered by the survey) compared to 29% for assisting with development. The most effective action for EU countries to resolve the refugee crisis Question: For months, migrants have been crossing the Mediterranean by boat and arriving in their tens of thousands on the shores of Italy and Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • The Immigration Conundrum in Italy and Spain
    AMERICA Immigration, Law& The Immigration Conundrum in American Identity Italy and Spain Laws and policies in Italy and Spain reveal ambivalence about immigration. by Kitty Calavita Both Spain and Italy have significant undocumented immigration populations. In this article, Kitty Calavita explains the origins of increased migration to Italy and Spain, beginning in the 1980s, the role of immigrants in the economy, the anti-immigrant backlash, and immigration law and policy today. pain and Italy have long been countries of emigration, sending millions “Spain and Italy of working men, women, and children to every corner of the globe since the late 1800s. In the decades after World War II, Spaniards and Italians found labor opportunities closer to home, shuttling back and forth to passed their first Snorth and central Europe where they supplied the backbone of the industrial labor force for the post-war economic boom. This migrant stream began to immigration laws in reverse itself in the early 1980s, as many former emigrants returned home, and these southern European countries attracted large numbers of immigrants from 1985 and 1986, beyond their borders. Italy experienced its own “economic miracle” in the post-WWII decades, respectively.” drawing large numbers of rural people from its less developed southern regions to its northern industrial centers. By the mid-1970s the gap between Italy and its northern European neighbors had narrowed. The increased employment opportunities and higher wage levels associated with this transformation attracted immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, much as in earlier years Italians had migrated north to better jobs. By 2006, approximately 4 million foreigners resided in Italy, with an estimated 300,000 being undocumented.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Application of the Dublin Ii Regulation in Europe
    EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES CONSEIL EUROPEEN SUR LES REFUGIES ET LES EXILES REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE DUBLIN II REGULATION IN EUROPE MARCH 2006 AD3/3/2006/EXT/MH EUROPEAN LEGAL NETWORK ON ASYLUM Report on the Application of the Dublin II Regulation in Europe CONTENTS page Introduction 4 The Development of the Dublin System 7 The Safe Third Country Concept 7 Schengen 8 The Dublin Convention 9 The Amsterdam Treaty 10 The Dublin II Regulation and EURODAC 11 Hierarchy of Criteria under the Dublin II Regulation 11 Country Information Tables 13 Austria 14 Belgium 22 Czech Republic 28 Finland 34 France 40 Germany 46 Greece 54 Hungary 61 Ireland 67 Italy 74 Lithuania 80 Luxembourg 87 The Netherlands 93 Norway 102 Poland 111 Portugal 117 Slovenia 123 Spain 130 Sweden 136 United Kingdom 142 Summary of Findings 150 1 Access to an Asylum Procedure 150 1.1 The Practice in Greece 150 2 Report on the Application of the Dublin II Regulation in Europe 1.2 The Practice in Other Member States 151 1.3 Procedural Safeguards 153 1.4 Reception Conditions 153 2 Selected Provisions 154 2.1 The Sovereignty Clause (Article 3(2)) 154 2.1.1 Protection Reasons 154 2.1.2 Humanitarian/Compassionate Reasons 155 2.1.3 Use in Accelerated/Manifestly Unfounded Procedures 155 2.1.4 Inconsistency and/or lack of application 156 2.2 Separated Children (Article 6) 156 2.2.1 UK Case Studies 157 2.2.2 The Practice in Other Member States 157 2.3 Family Unification (Articles 7& 8) 158 2.4 The Humanitarian Clause (Article 15) 160 2.5 Provision of Information 161
    [Show full text]
  • Jordan As a Transit Country: Semi-Protectionist Immigration Policies and Their Effects on Iraqi Forced Migrants
    NEW ISSUES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH S c h Working Paper No. 61 R o b Jordan as a transit country: semi-protectioniste immigration policies r and their effects on Iraqi forced migrants Géraldine Chatelard Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies European University Institute Florence, Italy E-mail: [email protected] August 2002 These working papers provide a means for UNHCR staff, consultants, interns and associates to publish the preliminary results of their research on refugee-related issues. The papers do not represent the official views of UNHCR. They are also available online under ‘publications’ at <www.unhcr.org>. ISSN 1020-7473 Introduction In the last twenty years, several episodes of forced migration have taken place in the Arab Middle East following armed conflicts between states (the Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 Gulf war) or internal political unrest (in particular in Iraq).1 Despite the scale of these displacements and the centrality of Iraq, the remarks S. Shami made in a 1993 paper still hold true. She states that attention has focused on previous episodes of forced migration, such as the Lebanese civil war and the Palestinian diaspora, that group migration has not been extensively studied, that relief agencies or human rights groups produce the overwhelming majority of the literature, and that there has been little focus on the long-term social implications of forced displacement (Shami 1993: 5). In particular, involuntary migration prompted by the 1991 Gulf war and its aftermath has been given surprisingly little attention, at the notable exception of studies by a single author that have looked at the socio-economic impact of return migration from the Gulf to Jordan and Yemen (Van Hear 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Dublin Regulation and the Migrant
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 19 Issue 2 2020 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DUBLIN REGULATION AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS Kimara Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation Kimara Davis, THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DUBLIN REGULATION AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS, 19 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 259 (), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol19/iss2/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DUBLIN REGULATION AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS INTRODUCTION In 2015, over one million migrants1 arrived in the European Union (“EU”).2 Many of the migrants were fleeing war and persecution in Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and other countries in Africa and the Middle East.3 The majority of the migrants sought asylum in the EU, a haven where they believed they could find work and opportunities for a better life.4 The EU, however, was financially and administratively unprepared for the unprecedented influx of migrants because it was recovering from a financial crisis.5 The EU’s migration policy, embodied in its “Dublin Regulation III” (the “Dublin Regulation”), requires that migrants register and apply for asylum in the EU member state they enter first.6 7 Consequently, EU member states (“Member States”) closest in proximity 1 The term migrant refers to a person who moves from one place to another and includes both people who are seeking asylum and refugee status and people who are seeking new economic opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Unhcr Study on the Implementation of the Dublin Iii Regulation
    LEFT IN LIMBO UNHCR STUDY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................4 2. Key findings ...........................................................................................................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Provision of information and personal interviews ......................................................................................................5 2.2 Children ........................................................................................................................................................................................6 2.3 Determining Member State responsibility for examining an application for international protection ..............................................................................................7 2.4 Discretionary clauses ..............................................................................................................................................................8 2.5 Transfers .......................................................................................................................................................................................9 2.6 Use of detention ........................................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • When the Dublin System Keeps Families Apart
    When the Dublin system keeps families apart Danish Refugee Council Danish Refugee Council Greece Danish Refugee Council MAY 2018 Borgergade 10, 3rd floor 54 Stadiou & 1 Emmanouil Brussels Representation DK-1300 Copenhagen, Mpenaki, 8th floor Place du Congrès 1 Denmark GR-10564 Athens, Greece BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium [email protected] www.drc.ngo For many years, the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) has been working with asylum seekers in the Dublin procedure. And for many years, DRC has experienced how families in practice are separated by the Dublin procedure and how the best interests of the child are often not taken adequately into consideration when authorities make decisions in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. Families must often fight for their right to family life by challenging the decisions of Member State authorities – a fight that many families do not win. The protracted appeals procedures along with burdensome administrative procedures in first instance result in families having to wait for many months before they can be allowed to reunite. With the reform of the Dublin III Regulation, DRC therefore calls for a Dublin IV Regulation which ensures that all families are kept together and that the best interests of the child are always taken into account when the Member State authorities make decisions based on the Dublin Regulation. To ensure that both the current Dublin III Regulation1 and a possible future Dublin IV Regulation are implemented by the Member States in accordance with international human rights law, DRC also calls for the EU and its Member States to develop guidelines on the implementation of the Dublin Regulation with the aim of keeping families together and respecting the best interests of the child.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposal to Modify the Dublin Agreement and Reduce Human
    De Blouw: Drowning Policies: A Proposal to Modify the Dublin Agreement and DROWNING POLICIES: A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE DUBLIN AGREEMENT AND REDUCE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF C ONTENTS ......................................................................... 335 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 336 II. THE CURRENT EU APPROACH ........................................................ 338 A. The Dublin Regulation ........................................................ 338 B. Inadequate NationalPolicies and Mandatory Detention ...340 C. F rontex ................................................................................ 342 III. THE MALTESE DILEMMA .............................................................. 344 A. Boat People: The Immigrant Flood in Malta and the M editerranean................................................................... 344 B. Maltese Detention Centers .................................................. 347 C. Malta's Search and Rescue Area and InternationalLaw... 351 D . The PinarIncident .............................................................. 353 IV. THE REGION OF ORIGIN APPROACH .............................................. 355 A. The Root of the Immigration Problem: Crossing................ 355 the Sea to Offer H elp ............................................................... 355 B. Existing BilateralAgreements ............................................. 362 V. MODIFICATIONS TO THE DUBLIN
    [Show full text]
  • DENMARK: Information for Refugees Who Are Returned to Denmark
    DENMARK: Information for refugees who are returned to Denmark Under the Dublin Regulation, refugees may be transferred to the EU country responsible (in most cases, the country of first entry), so that the asylum procedure is carried out there. Refugees who have already been recognised in another EU country will be returned to that country on the basis of the safe third country clause because their asylum application is not admissible in Germany. For many refugees, their imminent return to another EU country creates great uncertainty. Our guide is intended for advisers, voluntary support groups and people who are affected. It is supposed to show existing services and contacts. Refugees will be given information about their situation after being returned as well as addresses of organisations they may contact locally for support. However, no assessment of these organisations and services is made. We do not claim that the list is exhaustive. Publisher: Raphaelswerk e. V. Adenauerallee 41 D-20097 Hamburg Tel.: +49 40 248442-0 Fax: +49 40 248442-39 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.raphaelswerk.de This publication is available for download at www.raphaelswerk.de. We would be happy if you could create a link to the following page of Raphaelswerk e.V.: https://www.raphaelswerk.de/wirberaten/fluechtlinge Please do not hesitate to send your comments and feedback to [email protected]. URL: www.Raphaelswerk.de This publication and the English translation are E-mail: [email protected] supported by the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Tel.: +49 40 248442-0 © Raphaelswerk e.V.
    [Show full text]