DOCSLIB.ORG

EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014 Amending Regulation (EC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014 Amending Regulation (EC 8.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 39/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (3) In order to increase the efficiency of the system and improve the cooperation between national authorities, the rules regarding the transmission and processing of requests for the purpose of taking charge and taking Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European back, the requests for information, the cooperation on Union, reuniting family members and other relatives in the case of unaccompanied minors and dependent persons, as well as carrying out of transfers, need to be amended. Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States (4) A common leaflet on Dublin/Eurodac, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors, a standard by a third-country national or a stateless person ( 1 ), and in particular Articles 4(3), 6(5), 8(6), 16(4), 21(3), 22(3), 23(4) form for the exchange of relevant information on and 24(5), Article 29(1) and (4), Article 31(4), Article 32(1) unaccompanied minors, uniform conditions for the and (5), and Article 35(4) thereof, consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons, a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; a common health certificate, of uniform conditions and practical Whereas: arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’s health data before a transfer, are not provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. Consequently, new provisions should be added. (1) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 ( 2 ) a number of specific arrangements needed for the appli­ cation of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 ( 3) were adopted. (5) Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 4 ) replaces Council Regu­ 5 (2) In June 2013 a Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 was lation (EC) No 2725/2000 ( ) and introduces changes to adopted, recasting Regulation (EC) No 343/2003. A number of further specific arrangements should be estab­ ( 4 ) Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of lished for the effective application of Regulation (EU) the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for No 604/2013. the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regu­ lation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an ( 1 ) OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31. application for international protection lodged in one of the ( 2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law determining the Member State responsible for examining an enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational third-country national (OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3). management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, ( 3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 estab­ security and justice (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 1). lishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ( 5 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ L 50, fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention 25.2.2003, p. 1). (OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1). L 39/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 8.2.2014 the Eurodac system. Therefore, Regulation (EC) No No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the 1560/2003 should be adapted in order to properly Council (*) after comparison of the fingerprints of the reflect the interaction between the procedures laid applicant for international protection with fingerprint down in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and the appli­ data previously taken and sent to the VIS in accordance cation of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013. with Article 9 of that Regulation and checked in accordance with Article 21 of that Regulation, it shall also include the data supplied by the VIS. (6) Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1) provides for rules on the facilitation of application of Regulation (EU) No ___________ 604/2013. Consequently, the uniform conditions for (*) Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European preparation and submission of requests to take charge Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 of applicants should be amended to include rules on concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the use of Visa Information System data. the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, (7) Technical adaptations are necessary in order to respond p. 60).’; to the evolution of the standards applicable and the practical arrangements for using the electronic trans­ mission network set up by Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 to facilitate the implementation of Regu­ (2) Article 2 is replaced by the following: lation (EU) No 604/2013. ‘Article 2 (8) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2) should apply to processing carried out Preparation of requests for taking back pursuant to this Regulation. Requests for taking back shall be made on a standard form in accordance with the model in Annex III, setting out the nature of the request, the reasons for it and the provisions (9) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 applies to applications for of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European international protection lodged as from 1 January 2014. Parliament and of the Council (*) on which it is based. It is therefore necessary that this Regulation enters into force as soon as possible to enable Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 to be fully applied. The request shall also include, as applicable: (10) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up (a) a copy of all the proof and circumstantial evidence by Article 44(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. showing that the requested Member State is responsible for examining the application for inter­ national protection, accompanied, where appropriate, (11) Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 should be by comments on the circumstances in which it was amended accordingly, obtained and the probative value attached to it by the requesting Member State, with reference to the lists of proof and circumstantial evidence referred to in HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 22(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, which are set out in Annex II to this Regulation; Article 1 Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 (b) the positive result (hit) transmitted by the Eurodac Central Unit, in accordance with Article 4(5) of Regu­ Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 is amended as follows: lation (EC) No 2725/2000, after comparison of the applicant’s fingerprints with fingerprint data previously (1) in Article 1, the following paragraph is inserted: taken and sent to the Central Unit in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of that Regulation and checked in accordance with Article 4(6) of that Regulation. ‘2a. Where the request is based on a positive result (hit) transmitted by the Visa Information System (VIS) in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) ___________ (*) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European ( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 estab­ the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System lishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay Member State responsible for examining an application visas (VIS Regulation) (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60). for international protection lodged in one of the ( 2 ) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to Member States by a third-country national or a the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such stateless person (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31).’; data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). 8.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 39/3 (3) in Article 8, a new paragraph is added: In order to carry out the exchange of information referred to in the first subparagraph, the standard form set out in Annex VII to this Regulation shall be used. ‘3. The standard form set out in Annex VI shall be used for the purpose of transmitting to the responsible Member State the data essential to safeguard the rights and The requested Member State shall endeavour to reply immediate needs of the person to be transferred.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • The Implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in 2019 and During COVID-19
    The implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in 2019 and during COVID-19 August 2020 1 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Dublin statistics for 2019 .............................................................................................................. 3 Asylum applications and Dublin procedures ....................................................................................... 3 Outgoing and incoming procedures .................................................................................................... 6 Transfers.............................................................................................................................................. 8 The responsibility criteria .................................................................................................................. 11 Family unity ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Irregular entry .................................................................................................................................... 17 Dependency clause ........................................................................................................................... 17 The discretionary clauses .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Eurodac from 2016 to the New Pact
    Transforming Eurodac from 2016 to the New Pact From the Dublin System’s Sidekick to a Database in Support of EU Policies on Asylum, Resettlement and Irregular Migration Author Dr Niovi Vavoula Lecturer in Migration and Security at the School of Law of Queen Mary University of London ECRE WORKING PAPER 13 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Eurodac: The Digital Sidekick of the Dublin System 4 2.1 The Asylum-Related Functions of Eurodac 4 2.2 Law Enforcement Access to Eurodac Data 7 3. The Legal Landscape of Europe-Wide Information Systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) 8 3.1 Schengen Information System (SIS) 8 3.2 Visa Information System (VIS) 8 3.3 Entry/Exit System (EES) 9 3.4 European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) 9 3.5 European Criminal Records Information System for Third-Country Nationals (ECRIS-TCN) 9 3.6 From Independent Systems to Interoperability 10 4. The 2016 Recast Eurodac Proposal 10 4.1 The Transformation of Eurodac into a Tool for Migration Purposes 11 4.2 The Interinstitutional Negotiations 13 4.3 Fundamental Rights Assessment 15 4.3.1 Widening of Purposes Without Clarity and Demonstrated Necessity 15 4.3.2 Undifferentiated Treatment Disregards the Potential Vulnerability 16 4.3.3 Concerns regarding the capturing of biometric data of children 16 4.3.4 Capturing of Data of Third-Country Nationals who have not yet entered the EU 17 4.3.5 Rationale for Including Additional Categories of Personal Data Unclear and Unsatisfying 17 4.3.6 Disproportionate Retention Period of Personal Data 18 4.3.7 Potential of International Transfers of Stored Data to Third Parties 19 4.3.8 Right to Information Improved 19 4.3.9 Removal of Important Safeguards as Regards Law Enforcement Access 20 5.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DISAPPEARANCE of UNACCOMPANIED MIGRANT CHILDREN in EUROPE the Cases of Italy and Ireland
    UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation A.Y. 2017/2018 THE DISAPPEARANCE OF UNACCOMPANIED MIGRANT CHILDREN IN EUROPE The cases of Italy and Ireland Author: Ermioni Chaltogiannidou Supervisor: Jan Klabbers Abstract The interest of a further research on the topic of missing unaccompanied migrant children has been raised by the Europol‟s announcement of losing the traces of at least 10.000 since 2015. After presenting the extent to which the phenomenon has been addressed by governing and non governing actors, the research topic examined is whether the prevention of these disappearances has been taken into consideration in the 2016 Proposals for the reform of the Common European Asylum System and, particularly, in the proposed Reception Directive and EURODAC Regulation. For their evaluation it has been followed a comparative analysis with national legal frameworks of countries that have faced the problem and adapted their legislations on its prevention. Italy and Ireland have been chosen as the cases in order to examine the prevention of the phenomenon both in the context of a frontline and a destination country. From their comparison came out the regulations that could fill the still existing gaps, if transplanted on the EU level. The gaps show that the phenomenon has been perceived as an obstacle for the effective control of the migration flows in the broader context of the discourse about the securitisation of the EU borders. 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I owe this work to my parents and my sister who were supporting me throughout this academic year and experienced all my ups and downs.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Wrong Number?' the Use and Misuse of Asylum Data in the European Union
    ‘Wrong number?’ The Use and Misuse of Asylum Data in the European Union Minos Mouzourakis No. 69 / December 2014 Abstract The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is a policy area particularly evocative of the ‘politics of numbers’. The European Union has at its disposal a wide array of sources providing detailed information about its member states’ asylum systems’ capacities and pressures. This paper discusses the content of asylum data and the evolving interaction between its different sources, ranging from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to the European Commission’s EUROSTAT and DG HOME, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), FRONTEX, the European Migration Network (EMN) and national databases. However, the way in which such data are often misused, or even omitted, in political debate exerts a strong impact on the soundness of policy decisions in the CEAS. Drawing on debates over the contested phenomenon of ‘asylum shopping’ and the exemption of victims of torture and unaccompanied minors from accelerated and border procedures in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, this briefing paper argues that solid data-based evidence is often absent from political negotiations on CEAS measures affecting refugees and asylum seekers. This paper draws upon the findings of the Study on “New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection”, conducted by Professor Elspeth Guild, Dr Cathryn Costello, Madeline Garlick, Dr Violeta Moreno-Lax and Minos Mouzourakis for the European Parliament in October 2014. Both through desk research and through a series of surveys and interviews, the researchers gathered input from national asylum authorities, UNHCR, EASO and Members of the European Parliament on the way in which policy-makers use asylum data.
    [Show full text]