Strasbourg, 28/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - On 27 September the European Parliament vote in favour of the draft directive on minimum norms for procedures granting and withdrawing refugee status in Member States was very close (305 for, 303 against with 33 abstentions). Parliament only played an advisory role and the Council is therefore not obliged to withdraw its amendments but the measures to be taken on political asylum will now be adopted in co-decision with the Parliament. The main amendments adopted by the plenary involve: the possibility of refusing asylum to those seeking it from countries considered “super safe”. Most of Parliament rejected this notion, in the belief that it could not violate the principle of non-deportation as contained in the Geneva Conventions (only the EPP-ED and UEN accepted it). The majority of Parliament is requesting that there is just one list of third countries considered safe and rejected Member States being allowed to establish these lists themselves. The assessment risk for asylum seekers in their country of origin should be done on a case by case basis, without any general presumptions regarding safety; the detention of asylum seekers and immigrants in detention centres (EUROPE 9031 on the subject of the visit of MEPs to the Lampedusa centre in Sicily, which had been emptied of almost all asylum seekers). According to Parliament, an asylum seeker can only be placed in detention if the location is clearly separated from prisons and if “it has been established that this measures is deemed necessary, legal and justified”. On the other had, a parliamentary committee amendment aiming to limit detention periods to six months was rejected by 332 votes for, 337 against with 3 abstentions.
It was only after long months of negotiations and at the price of multiple derogations that a political agreement was possible at the Council on this proposal. On Tuesday in Strasbourg, during the debate, many MEPs demonstrated their concern at the text presented by the Council, which was reflected in the vote. Wolfgang Kreiss-Dörfler (PES, Germany) insisted that the concept of a “safe” or “super safe” country was strictly framed and only allowed if the country in question had ratified the UN conventions; that it applies the non-deportation principle; provides access to legal aid; grants specific rights to children etc. Speaking on the behalf of the EPP-ED, Carlos Coelho from Portugal deplored the fact that the European Parliament would only be consulted after the political agreement at the Council. He protested (as did a large number of his colleagues) that there was no representative in the House from the Council to follow the debate. According to Coelho, the concept of a super safe third country “is problematic” even if it has demonstrated its efficiency as in Switzerland or Germany. Ewa Klamt (CDU)considered, on the contrary, that the list of third safe countries was “very useful” and that this did in fact work very well in Germany. Martin Roure, a French Socialist, said that the Council text did not allow for harmonisation because it contained “too many possibilities for derogations and exceptions”. Claudio Fava (Democratici di sinistra, Italy) welcomed the vote, which he said “straightened out the Commission proposal” by radically revising the concept of a safe third country. He added that Italy would not be able to continue its “indiscriminate expulsion policy to Libya”, a country that had never ratified the Geneva Convention. The ALDE group is concerned at the possibility of “mixing up refugees and immigrants” and welcomed the co-decision for texts to follow. British Liberal Democrat Sarah Ludford said that she was very pleased that the plenary had significantly amended the final text in an attempt to improve it but was critical of the fact that the Council “had been unable to respect commitments made in 199 to establishing a common European asylum system based on the full respect of the 1951 International Refugee Convention”. Frank Vanhecke from the Vlams Belang (ex-Vlams Blok, Belgian far right) claimed that these conventions were construed for welcoming refugees fleeing communism and not for the current situation. Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhubber criticised the Council whose objective was “to make Europe inaccessible to refugees”. Genowefa Grabowska (Polish, PES) declared that the text contained a serious error that risked turning all refugees into potential terrorists. Franco Frattini from the European Commission informed MEPs that although refugee rights were essential they had to “prevent abuse” and distinguish between “genuine and economic refugees”. He insisted that the directive had to “enter into force as soon as possible as treatment in Member States was different”.