Brussels, 22/06/2011 (Agence Europe) - The Dublin II regulation, which determines the member state responsible for processing asylum requests, and the Commission's repeated requests for an emergency mechanism to be introduced to it (which would allow for the transfers of asylum seekers to be suspended) is continuing to pose a problem for the Council and is even beginning to annoy certain parties.
On Friday 24 June, the heads of state and government from the EU27, meeting in Brussels, will examine immigration and the Commission's famous “Asylum” package, which they are supposed to conclude by the end of 2012. Until now, the great majority of member states have found themselves blocked on a series of different texts, such as the directives on reception conditions and asylum procedures. They have even more misgivings with regard to the Commission's rather unclear objectives regarding Dublin II.
In the initial draft conclusions dated 15 June, this suspension mechanism sought by the Commission as part of Dublin II had, nevertheless, been clearly mentioned, as well as the “draft” referring to the fact that the Dublin system should contain this tool for activating assistance to a country in exceptional conditions whose asylum system was under great pressure. This is currently the case for Greece.
This inclusion into the conclusions constitutes a mini-revolution because member states had always refused to validate this suspension clause, despite progress being made in this connection. On 21 January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Belgium and Greece. It ruled against the former for having sent an asylum seeker to Greece (the first country of entry for the asylum seeker) and against the latter because this asylum seeker who had been sent back there had suffered ill-treatment. A decision by the Court contained an implicit message therefore in favour of the revision sought by the Commission. On 21 June, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution on this and called on the EU to swiftly reform the Dublin system based on the ruling by the ECHR.
Where is the problem? For most member states, particularly Germany, France and the United Kingdom, there has never been any question that they would give any legal body to this message from the ECHR and the mention of a rapid suspension was swiftly struck out from the text. Certainly, following this ruling on 21 January, a number of member states spontaneously announced the provisional suspension of transferring asylum seekers to Greece but a big step would still be required to include this directly in European legislation and no-one or almost no one is prepared to take this step. On 20 June, no reference to Dublin II was mentioned in the draft conclusions and one source said that “there is very little chance of this issue being returned to during the summit”. In the most recent provisional draft conclusions, the EU27 are expected simply to express a willingness to negotiate all the tax in the asylum package. These include the two most recent revised directives on reception conditions and procedures, including the Dublin regulation. No further details are expected to be provided.
Another European source indicated that they do not know why or how this clause was included in the first draft conclusions unless it was yet another attempt to get the most reluctant member states moving on the issue. The most recent Coreper meetings, as well as the last General Affairs Council, swiftly dismissed any possible illusions that could have existed and one of our sources indicated that “at least 23 member states had spoken out against this clause”. Another observer at the Council pointed out that “we're not going to make the same demand 38 times and receive the same negative answer 38 times either”. This source indicated that faced with this blockage by member states on Dublin II it was perhaps time that the “Commission displays a bit more creativity and finds another solution”. (S.P./transl;fl)