Advert

Rules on transfer of migrants challenged in EU court

An asylum appeals case in Ireland that has been referred to Europe's highest court, to test the legality of transferring asylum seekers between member states, may force the EU's hand in changing its controversial rules.

In a ruling that may have far-reaching consequences, Ireland's High Court made a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice after five asylum seekers contested a decision by the Irish government to send them back to Greece under EU rules.

The asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iran and Algeria were issued with transfer orders under the Dublin II regulation - an EU law that stipulates an asylum application should be decided in the EU state where the migrant first sets foot.

Although the asylum seekers are not contesting the fact that they entered the EU through Greece, they are alleging their human rights would be infringed if they were returned to Greece as it does not operate a fair or humane asylum system.

EU sources said this week's unprecedented case could have serious implications for the future implementation of the EU's Dublin regulations, particularly with countries like Malta that are associated with receiving high numbers of asylum applications.

"It is a fact that the EU does not yet have a common asylum policy, meaning individual member states are adopting their own rules which differ from one another," the sources said.

"These are now being challenged through this case and if the ECJ upholds the Irish request it will mean asylum seekers could start refusing to abide by the current EU rules, pushing member states to agree to changes."

Greece was recently harshly criticised on the way it dealt with asylum claims and this was instantly used by the asylum seekers involved in this case.

The critical legal point, expected to be at the centre of the ECJ deliberations, relates to the discretion each member state has to determine whether to send an asylum seeker back under the Dublin II regulation.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees argues EU states must consider if a person's rights are breached if they are returned to a state that does not have a functioning asylum system.

However, the Irish government and several other EU states - that are likely to join the ECJ case - argue the discretion not to issue transfer orders should be severely limited.

The Commission has already proposed the Dublin II regulations should change but is facing strong resistance from various member states, particularly northern countries.

The Maltese government believes the Dublin II rules place an unfair burden on Malta and similar southern member states, which due to their geographical proximity to Africa receive more asylum applications than other countries.

Apart from receiving more than 10,000 illegal immigrants since it joined the EU in 2004, with the majority applying for asylum, Malta had to accept another 300 deported from EU member states after they were found to be on EU territory illegally and identified as having first entered the EU through Malta.

Following Malta's persistent claims for change, the Commission had issued a set of proposals back in December 2008. This included the possibility of suspending the Dublin rules in EU countries such as Malta, which faced a disproportionate burden as a result of their geographic and demographic situation.

In May 2009, the European Parliament gave its consent to these proposals but the amendments are still pending as various EU governments are opposing them claiming they will have a negative effect on their asylum policies. On its part the Commission has been accusing member states of lack of solidarity with member states like Malta, Cyprus and Italy.

"The proposals are currently blocked as not all member states agree with them. The Irish case referred to the ECJ might eventually unblock the situation," Commission sources told The Times.

Although asylum applicants in Malta are normally hosted in detention or open centres, some still find a way of escaping and continuing their journey to mainland Europe.

More stories from The Times in the News section.

Advert

20 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Robert Callus

Aug 5th 2010, 16:59

What you are saying would have been the ideal. Unfortunately, every year a group representing either 8 or 20 countries (G8/G20) meet to make sure that what you are proposing for Africa (and other poor countries/regions in the world) does not happen.

Powerful people assisted by governments that send police officers dressed as pro human rights/ workers activists to initiate violence and eventually silence pro-human and workers rights activists and environmentalists.

Joseph Farrugia

Aug 5th 2010, 15:36

And you are one of us!!!

Joe Bugelli

Aug 5th 2010, 15:53

MARGARET RICHARDS do you know that Malta is the most overpopulated, over-urbanized place in Europe and in nearly all the world? So do you expect us to continue welcoming everyone whether he comes here legally and worse still illegally? Where are we going to get a breathing space Margaret? Where are our workers going to find work in our own country? Have you any brains at all to think about these problems which even a small child can understand?

Stephen Farrugia

Aug 5th 2010, 11:10

Exactly right. This man should be running our government and not writing on the Times. Why cannot we have leaders like him?

At least we have capable men with the proper ideas but the people have to do their part, to place the right men/women in parliament. If not, you get what you deserve.

Robert Callus

Aug 5th 2010, 12:36

You are wrong. If Dublin II is revoked, only legal immigrants will be able to move to other countries, not people who were denied protection.

Advert
Advert