Transforming Eurodac from 2016 to the New Pact
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 .............................................................................................................. -
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. -
Eurodac -2020 Annual Statistics* Factsheet.March 2021
EURODAC - 2020 ANNUAL STATISTICS* FACTSHEET. MARCH 2021 The European Dactyloscopy Database (Eurodac) helps Member States to determine the country responsible for the assessment of an asylum application lodged within an EU member or a Schengen Associated country, by enabling fingerprint comparison. Depending on the purpose of the fingerprints sets transmitted (the type of category), those are stored and/or searched against other fingerprints sets already present in the Eurodac. In 2020, 644,926 sets of fingerprints were transmitted to the Eurodac Central System. The use of Eurodac dropped by 30% compared to 2019, as a direct consequence of the reduction of border checks and travel restrictions imposed all over Europe due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 401,590 fingerprint sets were 82,295 fingerprint sets were transmitted for Category 1 transmitted for Category 2 (irregular (asylum applicant). crossing of external borders). 160,843 searches for Category 3 208 searches for categories 4 & 5 were (checks within Member States` performed (by Member States law territory), were performed. enforcement authorities and Europol). eu-LISA is responsible for ensuring the uninterrupted exchange of data between national authorities 24/7. The Agency provides effective support to Member States in their application of the Dublin Regulation. In addition to the system’s operational management, it is also in charge of Eurodac further developments. 10.2857/28779 2,000,000 20000 • DOI: Trend in the traffic of the main Eurodac 1,600,000 15000 0758 categories 2014-2020 - 1,200,000 2467 After a clear visible peak of Category 1 (asylum 10000 800,000 • ISSN seeker) and Category 2 (irregular crossings) in 4 5000 - Categories 4 & 5 data Categories 2015 and 2016, figures have significantly 400,000 90 - decreased as from 2017. -
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. -
Why the Common European Asylum System Is a Breach of Justice and Why a Third Phase of Amendments Is Required
LUCK OF THE DRAW FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN EUROPE: WHY THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM IS A BREACH OF JUSTICE AND WHY A THIRD PHASE OF AMENDMENTS IS REQUIRED INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 393 I. THE SECOND PHASE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM DIRECTIVES ................................................................................. 396 A. The Asylum Procedures Directive ................................................... 396 B. The Reception Conditions Directive ................................................ 397 C. The Qualification Directive ............................................................. 399 D. The Dublin III Regulation ............................................................... 401 II. A WARRANTED CRITIQUE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM DIRECTIVES ................................................................................. 403 A. The Asylum Procedures Directive: A Critique ................................ 403 B. The Reception Conditions Directive: A Critique ............................. 406 C. The Qualification Directive: A Critique .......................................... 409 D. The Dublin III Regulation: A Critique ............................................ 412 III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A THIRD PHASE OF COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM AMENDMENTS .............................................................. 415 A. Recommendation One: Regulations, Not Directives ....................... 415 B. Recommendation Two: Proposed -
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. -
Symposium on Covid-19, Global Mobility and International Law
doi:10.1017/aju.2020.64 SYMPOSIUM ON COVID-19, GLOBAL MOBILITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW FORTRESS EUROPE, GLOBAL MIGRATION & THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC John Reynolds* The European Union’s external border regime is a manifestation of continuing imperialism. It reinforces par- ticular imaginaries of Europe’s wealth as somehow innate (rather than plundered and extorted1) and of Europeanness itself as whiteness—euphemistically packaged as a “European Way of Life” to be protected.2 This exposes international law’s structural limitations—if not designs—as bound up with racial borders in the global context. In the wake of COVID-19 and with a climate apocalypse already underway, these realities need to be urgently ruptured and reimagined. Liberalism with Borders: Fortress Europe and International Law In the EU institutional worldview, Europe must be “shielded” from the threats of human mobility. The physical and administrative externalization of the EU border is designed to limit the scope for non-Europeans to legally access refuge in Europe. Those seeking to enter the EU from the Global South are cast in pejorative terms as presumed “economic migrants”—a loose category without mobility rights under international law—and rendered “illegal.” Europe’s access barriers for such communities contrast with both historical experiences of European colonial economic migrants who benefitted from an international legal regime “that facilitated, encouraged, and celebrated white economic migration,” and contemporary entitlements of First World passport holders whose global movement is expedited by a “robust web” of international visa agreements.3 People from the Third World—most of the world—are denied such arbitrary passport privilege. -
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. -
The Human Cost of Fortress Europe
THE HUMAN COST OF FORTRESS EUROPE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES AT EUROPE’S BORDERS Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. This report is published as part of Amnesty International's campaign, S.0.S. Europe: people before borders. To find out more visit http://www.whenyoudontexist.eu First published in 2014 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom © Amnesty International 2014 Index: EUR 05/001/2014 English Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] Cover photo: Border policemen patrol the Bulgarian-Turkish border where a 30km fence is being built to prevent migrants and refugees irregularly crossing the border into Europe. -
EURODAC? USAGE of the SYSTEM in the LAST 5 YEARS When Applying for Asylum, the Data Is Stored for 10 Years and Compared Against the Data Already in the System
WHAT IS EURODAC? USAGE OF THE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 5 YEARS When applying for asylum, the data is stored for 10 years and compared against the data already in the system. Eurodac is the centralised European database that stores 2 000 000 Future searches will compare this data with asylum and processes the digitalised fingerprints of asylum 1 800 000 requests and data on people who have been found to be seekers and irregular migrants who have entered 1 600 000 illegally present. 1 400 000 a European country. This helps determine the Member 1 200 000 State responsible for examining an asylum application. 1 000 000 For people illegally present in the EU, fingerprints will not 800 000 be stored but only compared against asylum applications Eurodac is a large-scale IT system that helps with the 600 000 already in the system. management of European asylum applications since 2003. 400 000 200 000 It is used by 32 countries: 28 EU Member States and 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Only in specific cases can law enforcement authorities 4 Associated Countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland operations – irregular crossing external border search fingerprints stored in the system related to asylum and Liechtenstein). operations – asylum seekers seekers and irregular crossings. Such searches can only be made when linked to prevention, detection and Eurodac stands for EUROpean Asylum DACtyloscopy Operations refer to action taken in the database (update/entry/search/deletion, etc.) investigation of terrorist and other serious offences. database. Source: Eurodac annual reports (eu-LISA, 2014 and 2015) In cases when the individual was granted international protection, this search possibility is limited to a period HOW DOES EURODAC WORK? of three years. -
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 -
Country Report: France
Country Report: France 2020 Update 2020 Update Acknowledgements & Methodology The 2020 update of this report was written by Laurent Delbos and Claire Tripier at Forum réfugiés – Cosi and edited by ECRE. Forum réfugiés-Cosi wishes to thank all those individuals and organisations who shared their expertise to contribute or check the information gathered during the research. Particular thanks are owed to many Forum réfugiés-Cosi colleagues who have shared their practical experience on the right of asylum in France – which have been key to feed concrete reality-checks and observations into this report; to the two lawyers who have taken the time to share their views on the French system; to the staff of France terre d’asile, the Anafé and the UNHCR Paris office for their expert and constructive feedback provided for the initial report and finally to ECRE for its support throughout the drafting process. Forum réfugiés- Cosi would also like to thank the European Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for co-financing its awareness-raising missions which allowed us to provide additional time to research and draft this report. The findings presented in this report stem from background desk research, interviews with field practitioners and lawyers, as well as feedback from French NGOs and the Paris-based UNHCR office and finally statistics shared by the French authorities. Caveat: In France, asylum policies – including reception procedures – are largely under prefectural execution. This review of practice is mostly based on observations in the departments of Ile de France, Rhône, Puy-de-Dôme, Haute- Garonne and Alpes-Maritimes. However, the conclusions presented in this report on the concrete implementation of asylum policies have been cross-checked and triangulated with observations of these practices in other regions and are supported by findings presented in other reports – be they official or drafted by civil society organisations.