Pressure is growing over controversial proposals made by the EU two years ago aimed at changing asylum rules in order to help “overburdened” member states like Malta cope well with large influxes of asylum seekers.

Following a decision by an Irish court last month to challenge the so-called Dublin II rules before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg spoke in favour of the proposed changes in a case being heard by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

According to Mr Hammarberg, the present rules, which specify that asylum applications should be decided in the EU state where a person first arrives, are not adequate and certain overburdened countries should be exempt.

Intervening during the court case instituted by an Afghan refugee who was sent back by Belgium to Greece – his first point of entry into the EU – Mr Hammarberg said his institution “supports the European Commission’s proposal for a mechanism that would suspend transfers and give states under particular strain short-term relief from their responsibilities under the Dublin Regulation as well as the possibility to seek financial or technical assistance to cope with the situation”.

“Such a system could help ensure that asylum seekers are not denied their right to a full and fair determination of their asylum claims,” he said.

The Afghan refugee is appealing a transfer order issued by Belgian authorities on grounds he risked “detention in appalling conditions in Greece” and feared he would be sent back to Afghanistan, where his life would be in danger.

This is the second case over the past month challenging the current EU’s Dublin II rules.

The Irish High Court refused to decide over a case instituted by five asylum seekers contesting a decision by the Irish government to send them back to Greece in terms of the EU rules. Instead, the Irish court referred the issue to the ECJ.

The decisions of both the ECJ and the ECHR, two separate institutions, could have serious consequences on the future of the implementation of the EU Dublin regulations and could eventually force member states to agree on the proposals.

Following Malta’s persistent calls for change, the Commission, back in December 2008, issued a set of new proposals amending the Dublin rules including the possibility of suspension of the regulations in the case of certain EU countries, such as Malta, which face a disproportionate burden as a result of their geographic and demographic situation.

However, although the European Parliament gave its consent to the proposals in May last year, the amendments are still pending because various EU governments are opposing them, claiming they would have a negative effect on their asylum policies. The Commission has accused member states of lack of solidarity with member states like Malta, Cyprus and Italy.

Apart from receiving over 10,000 illegal immigrants since it joined the EU in 2004, with the majority applying for asylum status, Malta had also to accept another 300 asylum seekers deported from other EU member states after having been found illegally on EU territory and identified as having first entering the EU through Malta.