The Fading Promise of Europe's Dublin System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants
Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Forced and Refugees of Resettlement and Integration • Karen Jacobsen and Charles Simpson Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Edited by Karen Jacobsen and Charles Simpson Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Social Sciences www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Special Issue Editors Karen Jacobsen Charles Simpson MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editors Karen Jacobsen Charles Simpson Tufts University Tufts University USA USA Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760) in 2019 (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/ special issues/integration and resettlement of refugees). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Article Number, Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03928-130-5 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03928-131-2 (PDF) Cover image courtesy of Charles Simpson. c 2020 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. -
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. -
Technical Appendix 1
Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1802.110987 Diphtheria in the Postepidemic Period, Europe, 2000–2009 Technical Appendix 1 Additional members of the Diphtheria Surveillance Network who contributed data: Ulrich Sagel (Instiut fur Medizinische Mikrobilogie und Hygiene, Linz, Austria); Martine Sabbe (Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium); Ingrid Wybo (Universitaire Ziekenhuis Brussel–Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium); Antoaneta Decheva, Nadezhda Vladimirova (National Centre of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria); Chrystalla Hadjianastassiou (Ministry of Health, Nicosia, Cyprus); Despo Pieridou-Bagatzouni (Nicosia General Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus); Bohumir Kriz (Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic and National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic); Jana Zavadilova (National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic); Peter Henrik Andersen (Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark); Jens Jørgen Christensen (Slagelse Hospital, Slagelse, Denmark); Unna Jõks and Irina Donchenko (Health Protection Inspectorate, Tallinn, Estonia); Markku Kuusi and Jaana Vuopio (National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland); Nicole Guiso and Patrick Grimont (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France); Isabelle Bonmarin (Institut de Veille Sanitaire, Saint Maurice, France); Andreas Sing (National Consiliary Laboratory on Diphtheria, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany); Wiebke Hellenbrand (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany); Jenny Kremastinou -
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 -
BUSINESS NEWS of the ISSUER NIS A.D. NOVI SAD Oil Major NIS
BUSINESS NEWS OF THE ISSUER NIS A.D. NOVI SAD Oil major NIS first company from Serbia to open representation in Brussels NIS celebrated the opening of its corporate representation to the European Union on 23 June 2011. The festive launch ceremony was hosted by the top management of NIS and its main shareholders, Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic on behalf of Serbian government, and permanent representative of Russian Federation to the EU Vladimir Chizhov. The event gathered officials from EU institutions as well as peers and stakeholders. NIS is the first company from Serbia to open a permanent business representation in Brussels. Mr. Kirill Kravchenko, CEO of NIS, said: ”The EU is of strategic importance for the economic development of Serbia. This is why NIS and its main shareholders – the Serbian government and Gazprom Neft – are keen to initiate a permanent dialogue between the Serbian oil and gas sector and the European institutions. NIS supports the economic integration and political accession of Serbia to the EU and has realised enormous investments in order to adapt its facilities to EU standards – for example by modernising its refinery in Pancevo. In addition, NIS already has the institutional European investors. This year the company has started realization of the projects in EU countries – Romania and Hungary-, our first step as a contribution to the development of the EU economy. By entering the EU market we create jobs, revenues, develop technology and partnerships with the largest European companies. Our new representation in Brussels will help us to complement this process through a constructive dialogue with EU decision-makers.” The opening of a representation in Brussels is a part of NIS’ business strategy to reach a leading position in the oil and gas sector of the region by applying EU standards and the most advanced technologies in its business operations. -
16. Stockholm & Brussels 1911 & 1912: a Feminist
1 16. STOCKHOLM & BRUSSELS 1911 & 1912: A FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL? You must realize that there is not only the struggle for woman Suffrage, but that there is another mighty, stormy struggle going on all over the world, I mean the struggle on and near the labour market. Marie Rutgers-Hoitsema 1911 International Woman Suffrage Alliance (IWSA) became effective because it concentrated on one question only. The Alliance (it will be the short word for the IWSA) wanted to show a combatant and forceful image. It was of importance to have many followers and members. Inside the Alliance, there was no room to discuss other aspect of women's citizenship, only the political. This made it possible for women who did not want to change the prevalent gender division of labor to become supporters. The period saw an increase of the ideology about femininity and maternity, also prevalent in the suffrage movement. But some activists did not stop placing a high value on the question of woman's economic independence, on her economic citizenship. They wanted a more comprehensive emancipation because they believed in overall equality. Some of these feminists took, in Stockholm in 1911, the initiative to a new international woman organization. As IWSA once had been planned at an ICW- congress (in London in 1899) they wanted to try a similar break-out-strategy. IWSA held its sixth international congress in June in the Swedish capital. It gathered 1 200 delegates.1 The organization, founded in opposition to the shallow enthusiasm for suffrage inside the ICW, was once started by radical women who wanted equality with men. -
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. -
Brussels, January 9, 2007
Brussels, January 10, 2007 Rezidor opens two new Park Inn hotels in Sweden and UK The Rezidor Hotel Group has signed agreements for 2 more Park Inn hotels in Sweden and UK – namely in the Swedish capital Stockholm, and in Leigh, Great Britain. The new Park Inn hotel in Stockholm, which is to be built in the rapidly growing area known as Hammarby Sjostad, will comprise 177 rooms, is scheduled to open in 2009 and will be the 16th Park Inn in Sweden. The 18-storey property will have a roof top terrace and a relax centre on the top floor, and will be a landmark in the area. Owner and constructor is Botrygg Bygg AB. The new hotel is in line with Rezidor’s strategy to pursue aggressive expansion within the mid market segment. “Park Inn is an important part of our growth strategy, as is the Swedish market where there is strong demand for mid market hotels,” says Kurt Ritter, President & CEO of The Rezidor Hotel Group. In June last year, Rezidor announced the new Park Inn Congress Centre Stockholm with 420 rooms in the very heart of Stockholm, scheduled to open in 2010. The property is a much awaited hotel and congress centre with capacity for up to 3.000 delegates in an auditorium setting, placing Stockholm among an exclusive group of global cities offering similar congress facilities in their city centre. The Park Inn Leigh will be built on the M6 motorway between Liverpool and Manchester – as part of the new Leigh Sports Village for sports education, leading training programs, corporate activities and conferencing. -
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 -
IRAQI REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, and DISPLACED PERSONS: Current Conditions and Concerns in the Event of War a Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper
A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, February, 2003 IRAQI REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AND DISPLACED PERSONS: Current Conditions and Concerns in the Event of War A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2 I. HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS............................................................................................................. 3 A. CURRENT CONCERNS.............................................................................................................................3 B. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................4 C. HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ...............................................................................................................5 II. INTERNALLY DISPLACED IRAQIS................................................................................................... 6 A. CURRENT CONCERNS.............................................................................................................................6 B. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................7 C. HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ...............................................................................................................8 III. THE PROSPECTS FOR “SAFE AREAS” FOR INTERNALLY DISPLACED -
Evolution of Asylum Legislation in the EU: Insights from Regulatory Competition Theory
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Evolution of Asylum Legislation in the EU: Insights from Regulatory Competition Theory SÉGOLÈNE BARBOU DES PLACES RSC No. 2003/16 EUI WORKING PAPERS EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author(s). Evolution of Asylum Legislation in the EU: Insights from Regulatory Competition Theory Ségolène Barbou des Places 2003 Ségolène Barbou des Places Printed in Italy in November 2003 European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50016 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION The paper proposes to use regulatory competition theory in order to better The evolution of asylum and refugee legislation in Europe from the mid-80’s understand the evolution of the EU member States’ asylum legislation. It argues onwards is characterised by a substantial decrease in the legal protection granted that regulatory competition theory can explain the rapid trend of legislative to asylum seekers and refugees. Scholars relate the emergence of a “new” amendments from the mid-80’s onwards, the progressive yet incomplete asylum regime that reflects a change in paradigms: whereas before the regime convergence of the EU member States’ legislation, and the spiral of restrictions implemented a selective but integrative policy of access and full status of legal norms originally enacted to protect asylum seekers. Competition among recognition paired with full social rights, it now maximises exclusion, legal norms also explains EU Member States’ reticence to collaborate and share undermines status and rights and emphasises short-term stay for refugees (Joly). the burden.