EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy Droit et Politique de l'Immigration et de l'Asile de l'UE

Print this article

par Joanna Pétin, CDRE   

La Commission européenne, le 2 mars 2016, a déposé une proposition de règlement établissant un mécanisme d’aide d’urgence à l’intérieur de l’Union. Elle y est très claire : « mutual assistance and support in the face of disasters is a fundamental expression of the universal value of solidarity between people and a moral imperative as such disasters may lead to a significant number of people being unable to meet their basic needs with potential severe adverse effects on their health and lives » (considérant n°1, COM (2016) 115 final). Si l’affirmation est pieuse, les mots sont une chose, les actes, une autre.

Depuis un an, le vocabulaire de la solidarité inonde les débats agitant les institutions de l’UE et ses États membres. Face à une crise migratoire sans précédent, les actes solidaires restent pourtant aux abonnés absents. La pression migratoire continue et le caractère massif des arrivées est de jour en jour de plus en plus réel. L’hiver n’a pas freiné les arrivées et l’approche du printemps sonne comme un avertissement pour l’UE. Les solutions adoptées à la fin de l’été 2015, sous couvert d’un « esprit de solidarité », n’emportent pas les résultats escomptés. Loin de là. Continue reading »

Print this article

by Ulla Iben Jensen and Jens Vedsted-Hansen, Aarhus University 

The adoption of the ’Jewellery Law’: One element of many which explicitly aim to make it “significantly less attractive to seek asylum in Denmark”

On 10 December 2015, the Danish Government presented Bill No. L 87 entitled ‘Postponement of the right to family reunification for persons with temporary protection status, tightening of the rules on permanent residence permit, tightening of the rules on revocation of refugees’ residence permit etc.’ On 26 January 2016 that Bill, including an amendment later proposed on 12 January 2016 by the Government, was adopted by the Danish Parliament and became Act No. 102 of 3 February 2016, amending the Danish Aliens Act. The Bill was based on the Government’s Asylum Package of 13 November 2015, responding to the large influx of refugees by presenting 34 proposals for legislative amendments and administrative initiatives having the overall aim of making Denmark less attractive to asylum seekers; an aim already declared in the Government Platform of June 2015. This Act represents the final part of the Government’s planned tightening of Danish immigration and asylum law that also included advertising in Lebanese media in September 2015 about the tightening of the Danish residence rules in 2015; the introduction of temporary Danish border control in January 2016; and the prolonging of same in respectively January and February 2016. Continue reading »

Print this article

par Henri Labayle, CDRE  

Le Conseil européen des 18 et 19 février s’est achevé à 23 heures 59, par la publication des conclusions auxquelles les dirigeants de l’Union étaient parvenus, accompagnées des commentaires du Président du Conseil européen.

Cousue de fil blanc, la négociation présentée comme celle de la « dernière chance », pour la 18eme fois selon un comptage journalistique, ne pouvait qu’aboutir à un accord. Sous peine de signifier l’échec du Premier ministre britannique et donc son obligation de sonner le retrait de son pays de l’Union européenne avant un référendum fixé au 23 juin.

Quitte à manger un cornet de frites devant le Conseil en attendant que l’heure tourne, comme la presse le rapporte à propos de la Chancelière allemande, ou à occuper son temps libre avec une émission radio pour le président français, il fallut donc simuler la tension, la sueur, le sang et les larmes. L’objectif de la mise en scène était connu : permettre au demandeur britannique de persuader son opinion publique qu’il avait arraché un « statut spécial » pour le Royaume Uni, garantissant à son pays le « meilleur des deux mondes » et justifiant son maintien. De même qu’il fallut multiplier les félicitations de ses pairs à David Cameron pour sa « combativité » et un « bon accord », à pur usage externe évidemment.

L’achèvement de ce simulacre peu glorieux permet de réfléchir au fond des choses, à l’instant où près d’un million de réfugiés soumettent l’Union à une pression sans pareille, sans bénéficier d’une attention aussi soutenue.

L’ampleur des compromis passés par le Conseil européen fournit-elle vraiment une réponse à la menace d’un Brexit ou bien n’y a-t-il là qu’apparence et jeux de rôle ? Au vu de leur forme et de la somme des démissions collectives que ces petits arrangements entre amis révèlent, ne faut-il pas aujourd’hui souhaiter que l’abcès soit percé, enfin ? Continue reading »

Print this article

by Evelien Brouwer, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , Conny Rijken, Tilburg University , and Ralph Severijns, ACVZ  

This blog is based on the advice given by the Dutch Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (ACVZ). The full report is available in Dutch and in English.

For some years there has been considerable criticism of the uneven distribution of asylum applications and the responsibilities related to such applications across the member states of the European Union (EU). There are substantial differences between member states in the number of asylum applications received, both in absolute and relative terms. Furthermore, the way the member states deal with asylum seekers and asylum applications varies. This is remarkable, considering that the standards governing the treatment of asylum applications are identical in the majority of member states, and are laid down in binding EU directives, such as the Qualification Directive 2011/95, the Procedure Directive 2013/32, and Reception Directive 2013/33. A study of the Dutch Research and Documentation Centre ‘How (un)restrictive are we? Adjusted’ and ‘expected’ asylum recognition rates in Europe’ published in January 2016, established the substantial differences in recognition rates in the EU, even if these recognition rates had been adjusted for the differences in the composition of asylum populations in the European states. The uneven distribution of responsibilities and recognition rates has led to tensions within the EU. This contribution explores how the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) could be transformed into a system based on solidarity, in which the responsibilities of the member states vis-à-vis asylum seekers and permit holders can be shared fairly among them. Continue reading »

Print this article

by Ana Rita Gil, Universidade Nova de Lisboa  

On the 1st September 2015, right during the epicenter of the migration crisis in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a striking ruling in the Khlaifia and Others vs. Italy case on collective expulsion. The case is striking as it demonstrates that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between a series of individual expulsions, which is allowed, and a collective expulsion, which is prohibited, when a group of several people is returned together. This is a key issue, as EU Member States claim that they will return third-country nationals who do not have the right to stay in Europe (in particular failed asylum seekers) much more often than they have done in the past. It is doubtful, however, that a “return industry” will be established due to various practical difficulties, and more fundamentally, the legal difficulties EU States would probably face in trying to implement such a policy. Continue reading »

Print this article

by Francesco Maiani, University of Lausanne  and the Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute 

This article is available in Greek and in Italian.

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and the Schengen travel area are in considerable jeopardy. The spontaneous arrival of approximately one million persons in 2015, 90% of them from the top refugee-producing countries of the world, has cruelly exposed their paradoxes and set in motion centrifugal forces that appear to threaten their very existence. The remedy proposed by the EU institutions includes as its centrepieces the “hotspot approach” and intra-EU relocation schemes. Great store is being placed in their implementation. Indeed, Greece is reportedly under the threat of exclusion from Schengen if it does not implement its “hotspots roadmap”. Hotspots and relocation also loom large in the debate on the future of the CEAS. The Commission has already proposed to include them permanently in the Union’s crisis toolbox and reportedly plans to replace Dublin with a permanent distribution key “quasi-automatically” allocating protection seekers to Member States.

While no one denies that the CEAS and Schengen urgently need therapy, it is worth asking whether the EU and its Member States are selecting the right one. I will offer my reflections on this after recalling the context in which hotspots and relocations schemes have been devised, their essential features, and the first experiences made to-date with their implementation. Continue reading »