Brussels, 26/06/2001 (Agence Europe) - At the time when there emerges a common system for asylum in the EU, the European Parliament's Freedoms and Citizens Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee adopted, on 19 June, a draft opinion from Baroness Sarah Ludford (Liberal, British) concerning the refusal by the Swedish authorities to grant political asylum to a 48 year old American citizen, Richard Goldstein.
Former justice of the peace, Mr Goldstein is also a militant against mistreatment and violence by the police, and has founded and lead in the United States a league aiming to create "civil monitoring committees" elected in order to be able to better monitor the police. Mr Goldstein asserts that he experiences, since 1993, retaliation from corrupt police officers and that his life and possessions are gravely threatened, reason for which he left the United States in 1997 and requested political asylum in Sweden. Request that was rejected as the United States is "an internationally recognised democracy and a constitutional State", that is to say "a safe country of origin".
Though the resolution of this case stems from national law, the EP Freedoms Committee felt that the case raises "issues that enter into the scope of the Community activity, the Amsterdam Treaty having brought the right to asylum into its sphere of competence". It also considers that the way in which the request from Mr Goldstein was treated raises questions of principal that are of the greatest importance for the establishment of a common right to asylum in the EU with regards to: - the validity of the "safe country" concept; - the definition of "persecution" and the right to receive asylum when one flees a country due to the behaviour of agents not belonging to the State (Sweden felt that the harassment experienced by Mr Goldstein must be considered as a crime accomplished by persons, police officers or others, acting individually).
The Freedoms Committee drew a certain number of conclusions that it submitted to the Petitions Committee, competent in this matter. It notably calls for: - the Member States to undertake a detailed examination of a dossier when the requestor emphasises specific elements susceptible of overriding a presumption of general safety; - the definition of the notion of "persecution" including non-State agents; - the Swedish government ensure that the request for asylum from Mr Goldstein be reconsidered.
All the EU Member States are considered "safe" and the requests for asylum are only considered receivable in a limited number of cases, but the HCR asserts that "the concept of safe country of origin must not be used as an automatic bar to access to asylum procedures". As for the Swedish legislation, it foresees that no country is considered from the outset as not being a country which has refugees and that the general situation in the country must be take into consideration when examining the asylum request.
In the report, Baroness Ludford feels that the establishment of a common asylum system in the EU must reflect the bast practices. In fact, it is to be feared that the States are not inclined to accept asylum seekers who could infer that the status of an ally country or friend as a "internationally recognised democracy" (…) is brought into question, which would constitute an unfriendly act, she writes. She continues: the directive that must soon be adopted on the right to asylum will have to guarantee, even for people coming from "safe" countries, that they will be duly taken into consideration.