Europe’s role in the global refugee protection system Chris Nash Legal Officer

1. Europe’s role in the global refugee protection systemChris NashLegal Officer

2. A pan-European network of 80 refugee-assisting non-governmental organisations in 30 European countries Finnish Members: Finnish Red Cross Refugee Advice Centre Executive Committee consisting of representatives from Member Agencies Offices in Brussels and London What is ECRE?

3. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) is concerned with the needs of all individuals seeking refuge and protection within Europe. It promotes the protection and integration of refugees based on the values of human dignity, human rights and an ethic of solidarity. ECRE’s Mission

4. Capacity-building: ELENA: European Legal Network on Asylum Eastern Europe South East Europe Information Policy analysis and advocacy ECRAN What does ECRE do?

6. SHARING RESPONSIBILITY › Take the lead in promoting international solidarity and co-operation › Take a fairer share of the global responsibility for protecting refugees › Better share their responsibility between themselves

7. PROTECTION IN REGION OF ORIGIN › Strengthen protection in regions of origin › Put human rights standards at the forefront of improving protection › Improve protection in Europe as well as in other regions

8. RESETTLEMENT › Offer a long-term future to refugees through resettlement › Start a national resettlement programme and expand existing schemes › Establish a Europe-wide resettlement programme led by the European Union › Develop resettlement as a complement rather than a substitute for existing asylum systems

9. ACCESS TO EUROPE › Adapt border management to ensure access to Europe for refugees › Create legal channels to enable refugees to travel to Europe

10. ASYLUM SYSTEMS › Give every asylum seeker a fair hearing › Invest in better decisions early in the asylum procedure › Monitor decision-makers to ensure refugees receive protection › Share the best practice, not the worst

11. INTEGRATION › Welcome refugees › Celebrate cultural diversity › Afford refugees similar rights to nationals › Enable refugees to improve or adapt their skills from day one

12. RETURN › Ensure return is safe, dignified and sustainable › Prioritise voluntary return over mandatory or forced return › Only return people after a fair & thorough examination of their asylum claim › Grant status & rights to asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who cannot return › Monitor returns systematically

13. Achieving a level playing field for all asylum seekers entering the EU Securing genuine burden sharing among EU Member States by reforming Dublin II A Common European Asylum System – fundamental objectives? CEAS

14. Common solution to asylum management in an EU without internal borders The Tampere goal of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) First phase minimum standards instruments (Temporary Protection, Reception, Qualification and Procedures Directives) The rationale of harmonisation CEAS

15. Difficult negotiations – lowest common denominator approach Huge differences in quality and capacity of asylum systems across EU Varying recognition rates Unfair burdens – Dublin The reality of harmonisation CEAS

16. "Practical and collaborative cooperation" among Member States Develop "appropriate structures" to coordinate leading to European Support Office Reiterating goal of completing CEAS by 2010 The Hague Programme CEAS

17. Single Procedure Country of Origin Information (COI) Particular Pressures Asylum Cooperation Network Communication on Strengthened Practical Cooperation CEAS

18. ECRE Way Forward paper "Towards Fair & Efficient Asylum Systems in Europe" (Sept 2005) Staffing, training, COI, expert support teams, quality assessment mechanisms, EU support office Welcome frontloading and involving independent experts Concerns - transparency and accountability Importance of independent quality monitoring? ECRE’s Proposals CEAS

19. Legal & political imperatives - Art 4 Qualification Directive & Art 7 Procedures Directive "Accurate, reliable and transparent" COI Common portal (limitations?) Common Guidelines (see UNHCR 2004 position) EU COI database Need to go further? - added value of EU Documentation Centre (more resource-effective, avoids duplication, and increases efficiency) Scope for Q&A panel/team of independent COI experts (REFINFO of Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board) Role of training (ACCORD COI Training Project) Role of monitoring (COI Monitoring Initiative in Central Europe) COI – next steps? CEAS

20. Sharing best practice guidelines (e.g. on treatment of unaccompanied minors) Training and accreditation of decision-makers (e.g. on interview technique, working with interpreters, vulnerable groups, assessing credibility, international refugee law etc) Quality monitoring (UNHCR's UK Quality Initiative) Project-led delivery of Hague Programme objectives through ARGO or ERF (e.g. ARGO project to develop a European Asylum Curriculum (EAC) - reference group/role of independent experts) Other areas of practical cooperation to improve RSD? CEAS

21. Legal basis under Art 63 EC Treaty Replaced the Dublin Convention and entered into force on 17 March 2003 with its provisions becoming binding 6 months later in September 2003 Binding on all EU MS and additionally Norway and Iceland. Switzerland is in process of joining. Determines which Member State (MS) is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged by a third country national The Dublin II Regulation DUBLIN

22. 0.3% recognition rate in Greece, nearly 50% in Austria Take the plight of Chechens – varying recognition rates and lack of psychiatric care facilities in Central Europe Consider the human cost Does it make sense? Germany: 30% Dublin cases – take back as many as transfer under Dublin?! Why change it? DUBLIN

23. Individuals denied access to an asylum procedure and placed at risk of refoulement Increased detention to enforce Dublin transfers Splits families & prevents people joining relatives Harsh impact on separated children Lack of reception conditions e.g. for torture survivors Lack of information to applicants Inconsistent, inefficient & resource intensive ECRE Report on Dublin II DUBLIN

24. Guarantee access to a full and fair procedure for all Dublin cases Better ensure family unification Exempt separated children from Dublin II Ensure adequate reception conditions and restrict use of detention Start the debate on need for fundamental reform ECRE’s Call to VP Frattini DUBLIN

25. Lack of harmonisation and inequality of protection across EU – encourages secondary movement Creates unfair burdens on states bordering EU and is in conflict with Art 63(2)(b) of the Amsterdam Treaty Prompts further restrictive controls on external borders (witness Ceuta/Melilla, Canaries etc) Fundamental flaws requiring more intrinsic reform DUBLIN

26. ECRE’s alternative system for determining which state is responsible for deciding a claim Supported by the creation of meaningful financial burden-sharing instruments Free movement for recognised refugees Replacing Dublin altogether DUBLIN

27. Reviving the spirit of Tampere EU should share best practice not worst laws Frontloading – better asylum management by creating fairer and more efficient procedures Access to protection Responsibility sharing and setting an example in the global context Concluding Comments

28. Working towards increased cooperation between states, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations Shared goals?

29. www.ecre.org Brussels office 205 rue Belliard, Box 14 1040 Brussels Belgium Telephone: +32 (0) 2 514 5939 Fax : +32 (0) 2 514 5922 E-mail: euecre@ecre.be London office 103 Worship Street London EC2A 2DF United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7377 7556 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7377 7586 E-mail: ecre@ecre.org