We, therefore, regret that the Dublin II Regulation confirmed the impossibility for an asylum applicant
to choose his host country within the European Union. Furthermore, whereas the proposals presented
by the Commission could have raised some hope, one must admit that the negotiations that followed
within the Council have substantially eroded the texts, and often times provide national decisionmakers
with a great deal of flexibility for taking action. In that regard, one may refer to all the
derogations agreed upon within the directive concerning minimum standards for the qualification of
third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees, despite the initial will of the Commission to
set up standards, that would have been, even if minimal, legally binding.
On the eve of a new enlargement, it is of paramount importance that the European Union adopt an
asylum and immigration policy in accordance with its values of guaranteeing international protection
and respecting fundamental rights. The "communautarisation" agreed upon in Amsterdam must lead to
progress rather than status quo and isolationism.
In view of the Thessaloniki Summit, the European Association for the Defence of Human Rights
(FIDH-AE) and FIDH are strongly concerned by some of the proposals that will be debated there:
1) Externalisation of Requests for Asylum
FIDH and FIDH-AE appreciates the withdrawal, by the British Government, of the proposal to
set up « processing centres » outside the EU. However, in view of the uncertain evolution of the
British plan, and, on the other hand, the Communication of the Commission published on 3 June 2003,
it seems appropriate to insist upon the risk linked to externalising the processing of requests for
asylum, in particular by increasingly turning to "regional protection zones".
Experience has shown that this would not guarantee sufficient and sustainable protection.
Besides, this process of "delocalisation" will force targeted countries to take on the role of "border
watchdogs" for the Fortress Europe, while they already support and host most part of the world’s
refugees, the UE welcoming barely 5 % of them. To strengthen its situation in the world, the European
Union above all must respect its international obligations and commitments regarding the for
fundamental rights and international solidarity.
Moreover, Member States are reluctant to finalise some directives. It would, therefore, be
abnormal for the debates on the externalisation of asylum processes to take the priority on the
legislative agenda of the EU in asylum matters. The urgency is not such urgency that it would urge
"operational decisions" challenging the very basis of the Geneva Convention to be made outside the
democratic debate.
2) Procedural Safeguards in Asylum Matters
The directive proposal (2002/326) on minimum standards regarding procedures in Member
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status was supposed to allow the harmonisation of
procedures by setting up new safeguards. Generally speaking, due to a desire to simplify matters, it
was decided that each application will be processed either through the normal or the accelerated
procedure. But, considering the criteria set for the implementation of this one, it seems that the fasttrack
procedure could apply for 80% of asylum claims, undermining de facto the need for a real
individual assessment of each claim and without any guarantee as to what the suspensive effect of
judicial recourses will be since this is left up to the discretion of the Member States. Furthermore, the
right to be assisted by an interpreter, fundamental in any asylum process, is being questioned all the
more since information must be communicated in a "language which they can reasonably be expected
to understand", without any guarantee that this will be the case. The increasing number of restrictive
provisions, a breach of fundamental rights, reduces the chance of the applicant to be granted refugee
status.
Furthermore, FIDH-AE and FIDH strongly condemn the total lack of guarantees regarding the
detention of asylum applicants, which only authorise a practice contrary to article 5 of the ECHR,
which already exists in several states.
Working towards a rapid and efficient procedure should not justify the levelling down of
procedural safeguards that are necessary for the full and global implementation of the Geneva
convention and the guidelines recommended by the High Commissariat for Refugees in the matter.
3) Granting and Withdrawal of Refugee Status and Subsidiary Protection
This directive proposal (2001/510) aims at defining, within the same text, the conditions for
granting this status and the rights allocated to the status of refugee and of persons who could benefit
from a subsidiary protection. This, in itself, constitutes an interesting step forward, all the more so
because the text proposes an extensive definition of the "agents of persecution", including non-state
agents, and the notion of "social group". However, negotiations that followed within the Council have
progressively led to an in-depth questioning of the spirit of the directive, with an increased number of
concessions to the different delegations. In particular, these have dealt with grounds for exclusion and
withdrawal of protection, in which a large degree of discretional interpretation ability remains for
national authorities, especially insofar as the notion of "threat to public order" is concerned.
FIDH and FIDH-AE fear that the subsidiary protection, as defined in the proposal, may lead to
the generalisation of a less protected status, undermining several guarantees provided in the
framework of the Geneva Convention. They denounce the difference in treatment introduced for
refugees and beneficiaries of the subsidiary protection; access to the labour market, integration
provisions, as well as the duration of the resident permit must be the same for beneficiaries in both
cases.
In conclusion, the European Association for the Defence of Human Rights (FIDH-AE) and FIDH
hope that you will recognize their concerns, act in a way that will prevent a restrictive and
dangerous approach to asylum and immigration at the Thessaloniki Summit. The European
Union must respect the Sevilla Agenda by resisting the isolationist temptation which could
undermine the necessary promotion of a fair and equitable policy directed at welcoming those
whose circumstances have led them to justifiably seek protection in the EU.