Exclusion from Dublin II unfeasible - UNHCR

The UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, believes that the proposal by the European Parliament to revise the Dublin Convention - which would enable Malta to become a transit state for illegal immigrants and asylum seekers arriving on its shores - is not feasible.

Contacted by The Times following the publication of a report by the organisation on irregular immigration and asylum seekers, Diederik Kramers, a spokesman for the UNHCR office in Brussels, said the agency had noted the resolution on Malta adopted recently by the European Parliament but deemed a derogation in Malta's favour not to be feasible.

"We understand that something for Malta and other similar peripheral member states has to be done as soon as possible, however we do not feel a specific exclusion from the Dublin rules is realistically possible," he said.

Pressed to state what other solutions were available to small member states like Malta, Mr Kramers said the UNHCR is suggesting that there should be more flexibility under the current rules to allow more burden sharing. He said that in this context the UN agency is recommending that "the European Commission should analyse the distribution of asylum applicants among member states, any potential imbalance resulting from the Dublin II system, and any possible negative consequences for the protection of refugees".

A few days ago European Commission sources had told The Times that such an exclusion is "practically impossible".

Earlier this month in Strasbourg, the European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for an initiative to be taken by the Commission, as soon as possible, with a view to revising the Dublin II convention in Malta's favour.

In its study on the revisions needed to the Dublin regulation, the UNHCR did not make any reference to the recent European Parliament resolution in favour of Malta. Mr Kramers told The Times the study was completed before the resolution was adopted.

Asked if UNHCR is in favour of the resolution he only stated that "according to us this is not feasible".

The Dublin II regulation entered into force in September 2003 and its purpose is to determine which state is responsible for examining an asylum application, to make sure that each claim gets a fair examination in one member state, and to discourage persons from applying for asylum in more than one country. It applies in all EU member states, as well as in Norway and Iceland.

The UNHCR said that the functioning of the regulation presupposes that the asylum laws and practices of the participating states are all based on the same common standards. In reality, however, the harmonisation of asylum policy and practice in the European Union has not yet been achieved. Both asylum legislation and practice still vary widely from country to country, causing asylum-seekers to receive different treatment across Europe. This can lead to gaps in the application of Dublin II.

The UNHCR's paper makes 20 recommendations to fill these gaps.

Most importantly, the UNHCR recommends that the text of the regulation clearly prohibits sending the asylum-seeker outside the Dublin space without examining his or her application.

The report recognises the enormous burden being carried by small member states and identifies Malta and Cyprus as having the highest ratio of asylum seekers to their populations.