Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Malta taken to court over EU asylum directive
Malta has been dragging its feet in adopting a new EU directive granting certain rights to immigrants from non-EU countries seeking international protection and the matter has now been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
"Malta had to transpose the directive, known as the Asylum Qualification Directive, by October 10, 2006. However, following various reminders by the Commission, the Maltese government informed us last October that the relevant draft law was scheduled to be discussed by Parliament the following November," sources close to the European Commission told The Times yesterday. "Since then, the Commission has not been notified of any changes and so we decided to proceed on the matter in court."
A government spokesman played down the issue saying the delay was only due to the general election. "It is true that we had promised the Commission to have everything in order by November.
However, we just had an election and Parliament is still not functioning. The groundwork is ready and should be cleared by Parliament in the coming weeks," the spokesman explained.
Directive 2004/83/EC of April 29, 2004, laying down minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (qualification directive), is considered to be one of the building blocks of the first stage of the Common European Asylum System.
The directive aims to ensure that, throughout the EU, the same criteria apply for the identification of persons who are genuinely in need of international protection and that a minimum level of rights and benefits are available for them in all member states.
This directive introduces a harmonised regime for the protection of those persons who fall outside the scope of the Refugee Convention but who, nevertheless, still need international protection, such as victims of civil war.
It also adopts a gender-sensitive interpretation of the Refugee Convention, allowing for the recognition as a refugee of those persons who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of their sexual orientation or gender. It thus recognises the legitimacy of asylum claims by women, such as those based on acts of sexual violence, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and by persons facing persecution because of their homosexuality.
The new EU law sets out the rights and benefits that attach to each status, regarding residence permits, access to education and employment, healthcare and social welfare, family unity and integration.
At the same time, the directive is clear that the EU cannot become a safe haven for terrorists who apply for asylum.
Tough clauses on exclusion from both refugee status and subsidiary protection status are included in it to prevent the abuse of asylum systems by those who could be a threat to the security of the EU or who have committed serious crimes.
RSS
Comments
This is not racism. They could be Hot Russian Blondies for all I care. The fact is that they are illegal immigrants which have been re-named irregular to ease the pain on the media.
Ask every man entering church on Sunday about what is his true feeling about the situation in Malta and you will get the general idea of what Maltese practising catholics think about this ridiculous situation.
The country entered a long tunnel and the light at the end is still not visible.
Speaking for myself I was always first to donate whenever there were missionary funds and worked hard with SOS Albania when they were stuffing up containers to send food and supplies to these people.
I really think that the Maltese are one of a kind when it comes to donating money and help the poor but the story is changing.
When the help needs to be given from your savings one can give out as much as he wants, be it a lot or little. Now that the help is needed by invading entities who are eating away slowly your hardly built country it is not a question of donating, it becomes a question of conceding and that makes all the difference.
Hunting, immigration, divorce, pensions, social services, foreign policy, defence, and that's just a few. The British have an opt out on all these and even more, but no, no, no, not us. Malta signed for the latest treaty wholeheartedly including the opposition. But then again we have a voice amongst the big boys, WHICH NO ONE BOTHERS TO LISTEN TO! Is one against the EU? No, but one needs guts to negotiate what was good for our country and traditions! Whoever says that treaties are not negotiable is a big fat liar.
The pain of knowing your cannot rule in your land while at the strike of a pen several miles away you have no alternative but to say `YES SIR`.
This is a bit more on large scale than the Spring Hunting issue. I am not mixing topics here by the way so Mr.Kenneth Cassar will not call me a troll. I am comparing the fact that Malta says one thing and the EC says another. Once Malta does not agree, just issue a warning, once, twice, third time its already a court case. This is getting insane and will only get worse.
Many people do not agree with Mr. N.Lowell and describe him as a brutal racist. He had his bad ways in expressing himself I agree but deep down he wants to safeguard the country.
Malta cannot be totally in line with the EU simply because our conditions are, and never will be, like other EU Member states which are all touching each other except UK and Ireland.
Our position, dense population, lack of resources, lack of natural drinking water and so on all contribute to special circumstances where the EU must understand that we just cannot comply without committing suicide.
I am writing passionately as my bruise is still burning, and the fact that a rule of law has prevented me from practicing my favourite hobby, where I was sure I was not bothering anyone, is hard to swallow.
Many welcomed the news stating that the EU took the bull by the horns and stopped these, as they said, barbaric acts.
Now its a different story and these people seem to have lost their voice (or fingers). Let us now enjoy the show where Malta becomes the first ball to be smashed in every tennis game the EU wants to play on its beloved court.
Many Muslim countries practise female genital mutilation. Does this directive mean that any woman from these countries will now be entitled to refugee status?
Most Muslim countries treat homosexuals badly. Does this directive mean that any person from a Muslim country, who claims to be homosexual, will now be entitled to refugee status?
And what about that bit about 'family unity'? Are the thousands of illegal immigrants who have been granted 'refugee' and 'protected' status, now going to be allowed to bring their families to Malta? This would mean several thousand new immigrants.
Will someone kindly explain the full implications of this directive to the people of Malta before 'it is cleared by parliament in the coming weeks'?
Pending or in the absence of this, our government should comply with nothing, cause as things stands, these do not apply for a small, dense, boarder and vulnerable country like Malta.
Being compliant and EU yessirs is going to lead us nowhere.
With these new directives, almost all Africa is an asylum case.