Brussels, 24/01/2011 (Agence Europe) - Following in the footsteps of Germany, whose announcement was published on Wednesday 19 January, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland and Denmark announced a reflection on Monday 24 January into ways of suspending returns of asylum seekers from their territories to Greece, thereby further echoing the condemnation on Friday 21 January by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of Belgium and Greece, the former for sending an Afghan asylum seeker back to Greece without dealing with his application fairly and the latter for inflicting particularly degrading conditions on asylum seekers (EUROPE 10299).
The European Commission immediately reacted to these two rulings on Friday, reiterating the need to create a common asylum regime by 2012 and to agree on its proposed revision of the 'Dublin II' regulation, suggesting a mechanism for the temporary suspension of sending asylum seekers back to the initially competent countries, if these countries are not in a position to be able to manage all applications appropriately. This is currently the case with Greece, which has been overwhelmed by an influx of migrants to its territory - it is the main means of entry for migrants to the EU - and called into question over its treatment of them, which runs counter to the standards of the human rights of asylum seekers.
This call by the European Commission for greater solidarity between the member states has never been much to the liking of its member countries, with a good many of them, particularly Germany, France and the Netherlands, having opposed precisely this temporary mechanism proposed by the European Commission, thereby blocking the Commission's whole “Asylum package”. Under the current “Dublin II” regulation, the member states can legally send asylum seekers back to the country by which they first entered the EU, as this first country is deemed responsible.
One source explains that the argument of member states opposing the Commission mechanism has always been that “the system has worked well until now” and the Greek situation is an exception due to its seriousness but does not justify any change to the overall rules. Member states opposing the Commission mechanism also state that by suspending the sending back of asylum seekers to Greece themselves, states are demonstrating that “they are capable of taking a decision at their own level” and new European rules are therefore not strictly necessary for taking some of the burden off the countries that first receive migrants. The essential point has always been how member states increase their assistance to Greece and exert pressure, so that the country improves its own asylum system, particularly with regard to Commission infringement procedures and its management of its border with Turkey (through which most of the migrants come).
Is this position still tenable, following the condemnation by the ECHR, which is questioning the legality of sending asylum seekers from one country to another? Malmström's spokesperson says that it is still too early to draw conclusions or imagine whether member states will now support the Commission proposals. Michele Cercone said that they would have to see what an impact this ruling would have. The spokesperson declared, however, that it is clear that repressive measures such as the infringement procedures launched by the Commission will not be enough: “Repressive measures are one thing but this ruling demonstrates that aid and co-operation between member states is also necessary”. (S.P./transl.fl)